Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I instinctively distrust the ERG, but I'll read what they have to say and try to treat it objectively. Similarly, people who don't like McDonnell should still give a hearing to his proposals to increase workers' stake in their companies. The question shouldn't be "What's his game and how can we defeat him?" but "Is this a useful idea and if not can it be changed to make it useful?"
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.
You’re cherry picking. How long had those 23 year olds been working before they bought? 5 years? Or 7 if they left school at 16? How many went to to university? How many lived at home until they bought?
We clearly need to do something about today’s housing market but nostalgia for the good old days of half a century ago is not the answer.
OK, how about the nostalgia for the early 90s then?
67% of 25-34 owned a home in '91, as compared to 36% today.
The housing apocalypse in this country is an incredibly recent phenomenon with many of the architects of the issue still in power today both in politics and business.
If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.
Leaving aside personal preference, I'm impressed both by Michael Gove and his counterpart Sue Hayman, the two environment front-benchers who I frequently have dealings with. My impression is that some of the others on both sides are pretty good too. I think you're going too much by the headful of front-benchers who get lots of media coverage. There is a correlation here - the more moon-battery you are, the more the media likes to cover you. Serious attention to your portfolio is not regarded as worth reporting.
Michael Gove has definitely been conspicuous by his absence from the media over the summer. He appears to be getting on with the day job, in a department that is going to be directly affected by leaving the EU more than almost any other.
I also think he’s a great bet if we do get a leadership contest, I don’t see how Boris has more than a handful of MPs supporting him any more.
If the ERG and anti Chequers Deal MPs don't back Boris they will back Mogg, Davis or Patel instead but it looks likely there won't be a leadership contest as May has more than enough votes to defeat any no confidence vote.
In fact it is looking increasingly likely May will deliver a largely BINO Brexit with a long transition period and quite possibly leading the Tories through to the next general election.
Of course that does not mean what we have now cannot be improved. In my opinion the main flaws in our current structures arise from a misapprehension of risk. The mindset of our regulators is extremely paternalistic. People need to be protected from themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to borrow too much, they need bigger deposits to save themselves from the ravages of negative equity, the system knows best.
Of course this is very largely nonsense and has made house purchase for many far more difficult than it should have been. Peoples circumstances vary enormously and so do the risks that they can take. A person like me in 1984 on a laughable salary had confident expectations, largely fulfilled, of earning more money in the years to come and had secure prospects. Of course I could borrow a much higher multiple without risk. Conversely, someone in insecure employment, however well paid, needs to think about the commitment of a monthly mortgage payment in good and bad.
Personally, I didn't see much wrong with 130% mortgages for most people provided they were in secure employment. They got credit at a much lower cost than they would on their plastic. Inflation would generally reduce the risk over time. Of course the lender was running a bigger risk and would charge a premium for that. They themselves had to watch the systemic risk they were running as lenders. But I recall reading statistics showing that the default rate for these loans was no higher than average. Being in negative equity was of no real consequence provided the borrower could service the loan every month.
In seeking to protect the few (and some idiot lenders) from an adverse experience the many are cut out of home ownership. It is wrong and we should stop it.
The only point of a second referendum IMO is to allow Leave voters, who now realise they were sold a pup, to change their minds. It needs to be driven by former Leave voters. So far there aren't enough of them. The rest voted for the "suicide belt" and by implication still support it.
49% would still vote Leave with Survation yesterday, exactly the same as their final pre EU referendum poll
If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.
Leaving aside personal preference, I'm impressed both by Michael Gove and his counterpart Sue Hayman, the two environment front-benchers who I frequently have dealings with. My impression is that some of the others on both sides are pretty good too. I think you're going too much by the headful of front-benchers who get lots of media coverage. There is a correlation here - the more moon-battery you are, the more the media likes to cover you. Serious attention to your portfolio is not regarded as worth reporting.
Michael Gove has definitely been conspicuous by his absence from the media over the summer. He appears to be getting on with the day job, in a department that is going to be directly affected by leaving the EU more than almost any other.
I also think he’s a great bet if we do get a leadership contest, I don’t see how Boris has more than a handful of MPs supporting him any more.
If the ERG and anti Chequers Deal MPs don't back Boris they will back Mogg or Patel instead but it looks likely there won't be a leadership contest as May has more than enough votes to defeat any no confidence vote.
In fact it is looking increasingly likely May will deliver a largely BINO Brexit with a long transition period and quite possibly leading the Tories through to the next general election.
Not many comments about Alastair's main point which is the fragmentation of politics. As we see this is commonplace in many countries including Sweden. In the UK we have had shades of it with UKIP and the Greens but by and large FPTP has forced our major parties to be big tents containing a range of views.
What we are seeing inside these parties, however, is the same pressure towards fragmentation. So we have the anti-Semetism row in Labour along with an ongoing civil war between the Corbynites and the remainder of what used to be Labour. In the Tories we have a former FS accusing his own PM of putting a suicide vest on our constitution and the ERG not even able to agree with themselves about what particular fantasy they want to promote.
I think we have to wonder how long can the centre of these deeply divided parties hold? The chance of a real split on both sides of the aisle is far from insignificant and only the savage penalties of FPTP have prevented it happening already.
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
Of course if we had Swedish style PR we would have far more parties in Parliament.
They have a Green Party, a Left Party, a centre left Social Democrat Party, a Centre Party, a Liberal Party, a Christian Democrat Party, a centre right Moderate Party and a hard right anti EU, anti immigration Swedish Democrat Party all with seats in Sweden's Parliament
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I instinctively distrust the ERG, but I'll read what they have to say and try to treat it objectively. Similarly, people who don't like McDonnell should still give a hearing to his proposals to increase workers' stake in their companies. The question shouldn't be "What's his game and how can we defeat him?" but "Is this a useful idea and if not can it be changed to make it useful?"
We need to have a sensible debate on a number of serious structural issues - housing and social care being the most urgent. This requires thoughtful debate rather than everyone taking sides and using perjorative language based purely on who puts forward any given proposal.
Not many comments about Alastair's main point which is the fragmentation of politics. As we see this is commonplace in many countries including Sweden. In the UK we have had shades of it with UKIP and the Greens but by and large FPTP has forced our major parties to be big tents containing a range of views.
What we are seeing inside these parties, however, is the same pressure towards fragmentation. So we have the anti-Semetism row in Labour along with an ongoing civil war between the Corbynites and the remainder of what used to be Labour. In the Tories we have a former FS accusing his own PM of putting a suicide vest on our constitution and the ERG not even able to agree with themselves about what particular fantasy they want to promote.
I think we have to wonder how long can the centre of these deeply divided parties hold? The chance of a real split on both sides of the aisle is far from insignificant and only the savage penalties of FPTP have prevented it happening already.
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
Of course if we had Swedish style PR we would have far more parties in Parliament.
They have a Green Party, a Left Party, a centre left Social Democrat Party, a Centre Party, a Liberal Party, a Christian Democrat Party, a centre right Moderate Party and a hard right anti EU, anti immigration Swedish Democrat Party all with seats in Sweden's Parliament
Yes, that was my point. FPTP restricts the number of parties in our system. But it certainly isn't stopping the tendency towards fragmentation.
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.
You’re cherry picking. How long had those 23 year olds been working before they bought? 5 years? Or 7 if they left school at 16? How many went to to university? How many lived at home until they bought?
We clearly need to do something about today’s housing market but nostalgia for the good old days of half a century ago is not the answer.
OK, how about the nostalgia for the early 90s then?
67% of 25-34 owned a home in '91, as compared to 36% today.
The housing apocalypse in this country is an incredibly recent phenomenon with many of the architects of the issue still in power today both in politics and business.
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.
Leaving aside personal preference, I'm impressed both by Michael Gove and his counterpart Sue Hayman, the two environment front-benchers who I frequently have dealings with. My impression is that some of the others on both sides are pretty good too. I think you're going too much by the headful of front-benchers who get lots of media coverage. There is a correlation here - the more moon-battery you are, the more the media likes to cover you. Serious attention to your portfolio is not regarded as worth reporting.
Michael Gove has definitely been conspicuous by his absence from the media over the summer. He appears to be getting on with the day job, in a department that is going to be directly affected by leaving the EU more than almost any other.
I also think he’s a great bet if we do get a leadership contest, I don’t see how Boris has more than a handful of MPs supporting him any more.
If the ERG and anti Chequers Deal MPs don't back Boris they will back Mogg, Davis or Patel instead but it looks likely there won't be a leadership contest as May has more than enough votes to defeat any no confidence vote.
In fact it is looking increasingly likely May will deliver a largely BINO Brexit with a long transition period and quite possibly leading the Tories through to the next general election.
Disagree. The keys to what happens in the next few months are the Leavers still in the Cabinet, of whom Gove and Raab are the most senior. If they resign then Mrs May falls, if they stay supporting her then she survives.
The party isn’t going to vote for someone with limited (or nonexistent) ministerial expertise to take over as PM.
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I instinctively distrust the ERG, but I'll read what they have to say and try to treat it objectively. Similarly, people who don't like McDonnell should still give a hearing to his proposals to increase workers' stake in their companies. The question shouldn't be "What's his game and how can we defeat him?" but "Is this a useful idea and if not can it be changed to make it useful?"
We need to have a sensible debate on a number of serious structural issues - housing and social care being the most urgent. This requires thoughtful debate rather than everyone taking sides and using perforation language based purely on who puts forward any given proposal.
So quite unlike the shrieking about a dementia tax which followed last year’s attempt by the Tories to deal with social care, then ........
Russia is gearing up for its biggest military exercise in decades next week. 300 000 soldiers, 1000 planes and 36 000 tanks will be involved in the exercise taking place in Siberia. China has been invited and is sending 3000 troops.
Apparently a train carrying Chinese troops to the exercise was attacked by locals. The Chinese soldiers opened fire killing three attackers. This is from Chinese social media. Obviously not reported by State media.
I seem to recall from the Simon Reeve in Russia programmes that there was a lot of ill feeling towards the Chinese on the Siberia-China border, mainly down to Chinese money buying up land and businesses.
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.
You’re cherry picking. How long had those 23 year olds been working before they bought? 5 years? Or 7 if they left school at 16? How many went to to university? How many lived at home until they bought?
We clearly need to do something about today’s housing market but nostalgia for the good old days of half a century ago is not the answer.
OK, how about the nostalgia for the early 90s then?
67% of 25-34 owned a home in '91, as compared to 36% today.
The housing apocalypse in this country is an incredibly recent phenomenon with many of the architects of the issue still in power today both in politics and business.
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
Part of my point about my rent in 1962 is that there was reasonable (in both senses of the term) property to rent, at least in the NorthWest. And when we came South a year or so later buying something wasn’t too difficult either.
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I instinctively distrust the ERG, but I'll read what they have to say and try to treat it objectively. Similarly, people who don't like McDonnell should still give a hearing to his proposals to increase workers' stake in their companies. The question shouldn't be "What's his game and how can we defeat him?" but "Is this a useful idea and if not can it be changed to make it useful?"
I quite agree.
A pity then that your party wholly failed to do what you propose when the Tories tried - however ineptly - to address the social care issue last year.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I instinctively distrust the ERG, but I'll read what they have to say and try to treat it objectively. Similarly, people who don't like McDonnell should still give a hearing to his proposals to increase workers' stake in their companies. The question shouldn't be "What's his game and how can we defeat him?" but "Is this a useful idea and if not can it be changed to make it useful?"
We need to have a sensible debate on a number of serious structural issues - housing and social care being the most urgent. This requires thoughtful debate rather than everyone taking sides and using perjorative language based purely on who puts forward any given proposal.
So quite unlike the shrieking about a dementia tax which followed last year’s attempt by the Tories to deal with social care, then ........
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
It’s still easy to buy property in the North West now. All my nephews and nieces own property and my daughter has moved to the area in part because she has a realistic chance of buying property and, for the price, much nicer property than she could get in London or the South East. She also has a job with a pension so saving is a realistic proposition for her.
I suspect that at least one of my other children will make the same calculation.
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I instinctively distrust the ERG, but I'll read what they have to say and try to treat it objectively. Similarly, people who don't like McDonnell should still give a hearing to his proposals to increase workers' stake in their companies. The question shouldn't be "What's his game and how can we defeat him?" but "Is this a useful idea and if not can it be changed to make it useful?"
I quite agree.
A pity then that your party wholly failed to do what you propose when the Tories tried - however ineptly - to address the social care issue last year.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
It’s still easy to buy property in the North West now. All my nephews and nieces own property and my daughter has moved to the area in part because she has a realistic chance of buying property and, for the price, much nicer property than she could get in London or the South East. She also has a job with a pension so saving is a realistic proposition for her.
I suspect that at least one of my other children will make the same calculation.
Agree; my extended family 'up there’ seem to have overall lower living costs that those in Essex or Kent. Property in the latter seems even’worse’ than N Essex. And Eldest Granddaughter, having gone North for uni, has no desire to come back South.
Chuka Umunna says the Labour Party is "institutionally racist".
So why is he still a member?
Because that's how Labour works. It's a "family". You can't leave.
Labour thinks of itself as the divinely appointed sole arbiter of progressive politics. You get sensible people like Stella Creasy and Chuka Umunna whose politics have basically nothing in common with Corbyn et al, but who would never, ever, countenance leaving. Labour won't admit the possibility that anyone else can advance progressive ideas. It's amazingly arrogant, and intensely frustrating for the rest of us who might consider ourselves progressives but are turned off by Labour.
I would love a progressive party to challenge Labour in England and Wales, just as the SNP has done in Scotland. But there's no sign of it happening.
If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.
Leaving aside personal preference, I'm impressed both by Michael Gove and his counterpart Sue Hayman, the two environment front-benchers who I frequently have dealings with. My impression is that some of the others on both sides are pretty good too. I think you're going too much by the headful of front-benchers who get lots of media coverage. There is a correlation here - the more moon-battery you are, the more the media likes to cover you. Serious attention to your portfolio is not regarded as worth reporting.
Michael Gove has definitely been conspicuous by his absence from the media over the summer. He appears to be getting on with the day job, in a department that is going to be directly affected by leaving the EU more than almost any other.
I also think he’s a great bet if we do get a leadership contest, I don’t see how Boris has more than a handful of MPs supporting him any more.
Gove would need to win over those Members (of Parliament, then the wider Party) if Boris doesn't stand/has become too bat-shit crazy. I just don't see them going for him. Gove's fundamental problem is that nobody much likes him, nobody much trusts him.
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I instinctively distrust the ERG, but I'll read what they have to say and try to treat it objectively. Similarly, people who don't like McDonnell should still give a hearing to his proposals to increase workers' stake in their companies. The question shouldn't be "What's his game and how can we defeat him?" but "Is this a useful idea and if not can it be changed to make it useful?"
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Chuka Umunna says the Labour Party is "institutionally racist".
So why is he still a member?
Because that's how Labour works. It's a "family". You can't leave.
Labour thinks of itself as the divinely appointed sole arbiter of progressive politics. You get sensible people like Stella Creasy and Chuka Umunna whose politics have basically nothing in common with Corbyn et al, but who would never, ever, countenance leaving. Labour won't admit the possibility that anyone else can advance progressive ideas. It's amazingly arrogant, and intensely frustrating for the rest of us who might consider ourselves progressives but are turned off by Labour.
I would love a progressive party to challenge Labour in England and Wales, just as the SNP has done in Scotland. But there's no sign of it happening.
Just might happen in Wales if Leanne Wood can get a few more articulate Valleys folk with her.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I instinctively distrust the ERG, but I'll read what they have to say and try to treat it objectively. Similarly, people who don't like McDonnell should still give a hearing to his proposals to increase workers' stake in their companies. The question shouldn't be "What's his game and how can we defeat him?" but "Is this a useful idea and if not can it be changed to make it useful?"
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
A pity then that your party wholly failed to do what you propose when the Tories tried - however ineptly - to address the social care issue last year.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
Yes, but it's pointlessly partisan to complain about "your party". I could reply by pointing to what happened when my party tried to address the issue, but I won't. The problem is the culture, the culture is driven by the media, and the media are driven by the ADHD-afflicted public.
If we're talking party politics, one reason I like Corbyn is that he calmly sticks to his guns when assailed by the media. We can disagree whether he has the right guns to stick to, but it's one of the qualities of leadership that you have sufficient self-confidence not to run for cover as soon as the Daily Mail has a go at you. (I like Oliver Letwin for the same reason, probably not a comparison that either would especially relish.)
Mr. Owls, the so-called dementia tax, regardless of the policy itself, was one of the most stupidly introduced policies in political history. It's a highly emotive area, requires long term agreement across the political spectrum, and involves large sums of money. The policy was introduced with no consultation, kite-flying, consensus, or even (it seems) focus groups being used to assess the PR impact.
And it was introduced in the teeth of Cabinet opposition during a manifesto launch.
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
My magic bullet (on the assumption that actually building fuckloads more houses andninfastructure in a sustainable way is too hard a problem) is to carefully unpick the half dozen or so things that occurred between the mid 80s and 90s that enabled the Buy To Let mortgage to become viable.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
A pity then that your party wholly failed to do what you propose when the Tories tried - however ineptly - to address the social care issue last year.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
Yes, but it's pointlessly partisan to complain about "your party". I could reply by pointing to what happened when my party tried to address the issue, but I won't. The problem is the culture, the culture is driven by the media, and the media are driven by the ADHD-afflicted public.
If we're talking party politics, one reason I like Corbyn is that he calmly sticks to his guns when assailed by the media. We can disagree whether he has the right guns to stick to, but it's one of the qualities of leadership that you have sufficient self-confidence not to run for cover as soon as the Daily Mail has a go at you. (I like Oliver Letwin for the same reason, probably not a comparison that either would especially relish.)
But that's exactly what Oliver Letwin did ("run for cover") in 2001!
Geoffrey a Leaver? I don't think I've been so surprised since I again had confirmation (part 317) that Boris was a self seeking, duplicitous, nasty shit.
If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.
Leaving aside personal preference, I'm impressed both by Michael Gove and his counterpart Sue Hayman, the two environment front-benchers who I frequently have dealings with. My impression is that some of the others on both sides are pretty good too. I think you're going too much by the headful of front-benchers who get lots of media coverage. There is a correlation here - the more moon-battery you are, the more the media likes to cover you. Serious attention to your portfolio is not regarded as worth reporting.
Michael Gove has definitely been conspicuous by his absence from the media over the summer. He appears to be getting on with the day job, in a department that is going to be directly affected by leaving the EU more than almost any other.
I also think he’s a great bet if we do get a leadership contest, I don’t see how Boris has more than a handful of MPs supporting him any more.
If the ERG and anti Chequers Deal MPs don't back Boris they will back Mogg or Patel instead but it looks likely there won't be a leadership contest as May has more than enough votes to defeat any no confidence vote.
In fact it is looking increasingly likely May will deliver a largely BINO Brexit with a long transition period and quite possibly leading the Tories through to the next general election.
Patel! Patel! Are you drinking this early?
If Boris drops out and Mogg does not stand and there is no Davis coronation then Patel becomes the default anti Chequers Deal candidate.
Priti Patel knows that and is working the rubber chicken circuit hard, she is addressing our Association's annual dinner next month
If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.
Leaving aside personal preference, I'm impressed both by Michael Gove and his counterpart Sue Hayman, the two environment front-benchers who I frequently have dealings with. My impression is that some of the others on both sides are pretty good too. I think you're going too much by the headful of front-benchers who get lots of media coverage. There is a correlation here - the more moon-battery you are, the more the media likes to cover you. Serious attention to your portfolio is not regarded as worth reporting.
Michael Gove has definitely been conspicuous by his absence from the media over the summer. He appears to be getting on with the day job, in a department that is going to be directly affected by leaving the EU more than almost any other.
I also think he’s a great bet if we do get a leadership contest, I don’t see how Boris has more than a handful of MPs supporting him any more.
If the ERG and anti Chequers Deal MPs don't back Boris they will back Mogg, Davis or Patel instead but it looks likely there won't be a leadership contest as May has more than enough votes to defeat any no confidence vote.
In fact it is looking increasingly likely May will deliver a largely BINO Brexit with a long transition period and quite possibly leading the Tories through to the next general election.
Disagree. The keys to what happens in the next few months are the Leavers still in the Cabinet, of whom Gove and Raab are the most senior. If they resign then Mrs May falls, if they stay supporting her then she survives.
The party isn’t going to vote for someone with limited (or nonexistent) ministerial expertise to take over as PM.
Gove and Raab will stay, they have both nailed themselves to the BINO mast by backing May's Chequers Deal and Gove is moving towards EEA/EFTA as the longer term solution.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
That people should pay for their own food, accommodation, heating and light is not out-of-the-box thinking. Why should the state pay just because you are older?
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Or more to the point steal many middle aged voters inheritance!
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
It was politically naïve perhaps, but no better policy has surfaced.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Hammond is going to propose an Amazon tax in the Budget, hopefully with lower business rates coming through from Councils too
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Or more to the point steal many middle aged voters inheritance!
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
Which is the worst possible idea, being as it puts the burden on those currently working (and struggling with housing, tuition etc) rather than those benefiting from the service.
Chuka Umunna says the Labour Party is "institutionally racist".
So why is he still a member?
Because that's how Labour works. It's a "family". You can't leave.
Labour thinks of itself as the divinely appointed sole arbiter of progressive politics. You get sensible people like Stella Creasy and Chuka Umunna whose politics have basically nothing in common with Corbyn et al, but who would never, ever, countenance leaving. Labour won't admit the possibility that anyone else can advance progressive ideas. It's amazingly arrogant, and intensely frustrating for the rest of us who might consider ourselves progressives but are turned off by Labour.
I would love a progressive party to challenge Labour in England and Wales, just as the SNP has done in Scotland. But there's no sign of it happening.
Just might happen in Wales if Leanne Wood can get a few more articulate Valleys folk with her.
The Tories have beaten Plaid at every general election ever held in Wales in terms of voteshare, even if Plaid do a bit better at Assembly elections they are still yet to beat Labour.
The Greens are already the 'progressive' alternative to Labour in England and unlike Plaid and the SNP not Nationalists either
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.
You’re cherry picking. How long had those 23 year olds been working before they bought? 5 years? Or 7 if they left school at 16? How many went to to university? How many lived at home until they bought?
We clearly need to do something about today’s housing market but nostalgia for the good old days of half a century ago is not the answer.
OK, how about the nostalgia for the early 90s then?
67% of 25-34 owned a home in '91, as compared to 36% today.
The housing apocalypse in this country is an incredibly recent phenomenon with many of the architects of the issue still in power today both in politics and business.
The early/mid nineties was when I bought my house. I was helped hugely by the massive crash in prices around that time. The person I bought it from, on the other hand, did not enjoy the £20,000 negative equity one bit.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Hammond is going to propose an Amazon tax in the Budget, hopefully with lower business rates coming through from Councils too
And how is one supposed to define an “Amazon Tax” in a way that doesn’t simply have them posting parcels from Ireland - while simultaneously acting as a barrier to entry to smaller online retailers?
A Conservative Chancellor should be looking to help the HS retailers compete, rather than trying to find a way to punish online retailers. Business rates is a good place to start, as we have seen with corporation tax cutting rates can see an increase in revenue.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Hammond is going to propose an Amazon tax in the Budget, hopefully with lower business rates coming through from Councils too
And how is one supposed to define an “Amazon Tax” in a way that doesn’t simply have them posting parcels from Ireland - while simultaneously acting as a barrier to entry to smaller online retailers?
A Conservative Chancellor should be looking to help the HS retailers compete, rather than trying to find a way to punish online retailers. Business rates is a good place to start, as we have seen with corporation tax cutting rates can see an increase in revenue.
A stamp duty on online transactions by credit card and paypal?
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
My magic bullet (on the assumption that actually building fuckloads more houses andninfastructure in a sustainable way is too hard a problem) is to carefully unpick the half dozen or so things that occurred between the mid 80s and 90s that enabled the Buy To Let mortgage to become viable.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
I have rented three times in my life for a total of three and three quarter years. Three year tenancies would have completely stuffed me.
Mr. W, that'd also affect the self-employed. I sometimes get paid by bank transfer, sometimes by Paypal. A lot of writers, proofreaders, artists, etc use Paypal a lot.
(Available as a proofreader, incidentally. Feel free to message me if you have some work you want doing).
Chuka Umunna says the Labour Party is "institutionally racist".
So why is he still a member?
Because that's how Labour works. It's a "family". You can't leave.
Labour thinks of itself as the divinely appointed sole arbiter of progressive politics. You get sensible people like Stella Creasy and Chuka Umunna whose politics have basically nothing in common with Corbyn et al, but who would never, ever, countenance leaving. Labour won't admit the possibility that anyone else can advance progressive ideas. It's amazingly arrogant, and intensely frustrating for the rest of us who might consider ourselves progressives but are turned off by Labour.
I would love a progressive party to challenge Labour in England and Wales, just as the SNP has done in Scotland. But there's no sign of it happening.
Just might happen in Wales if Leanne Wood can get a few more articulate Valleys folk with her.
The Tories have beaten Plaid at every general election ever held in Wales in terms of voteshare, even if Plaid do a bit better at Assembly elections they are still yet to beat Labour.
The Greens are already the 'progressive' alternative to Labour in England and unlike Plaid and the SNP not Nationalists either
Mr. W, that'd also affect the self-employed. I sometimes get paid by bank transfer, sometimes by Paypal. A lot of writers, proofreaders, artists, etc use Paypal a lot.
(Available as a proofreader, incidentally. Feel free to message me if you have some work you want doing).
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.
In 1960 the averrents.
You’re cherry picking. How long had those 23 year olds been working before they bought? 5 years? Or 7 if they left school at 16? How many went to to university? How many lived at home until they bought?
We clearly need to do something about today’s housing market but nostalgia for the good old days of half a century ago is not the answer.
OK, how about the nostalgia for the early 90s then?
67% of 25-34 owned a home in '91, as compared to 36% today.
The housing apocalypse in this country is an incredibly recent phenomenon with many of the architects of the issue still in power today both in politics and business.
I notice though that almost 60% of 35-44s own a home today, so the problem is really restricted to under 35s, most people will still own a home by their mid 40s (coincidentally about the age the median voter is more likely to vote Tory than Labour)
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
My magic bullet (on the assumption that actually building fuckloads more houses andninfastructure in a sustainable way is too hard a problem) is to carefully unpick the half dozen or so things that occurred between the mid 80s and 90s that enabled the Buy To Let mortgage to become viable.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
I have rented three times in my life for a total of three and three quarter years. Three year tenancies would have completely stuffed me.
The renter doesn't have to stay for 3 years. The landlord has to guarantee 3 years if they want it.
I think that's right - we are so used to "blaming the media" as a facile excuse, but throughout my time in Parliament I found it routinely true that trivial spats were seen as more interesting and newsworthy than anything positive, and doing down the other side was seen as more important than making progress. An example is the way that the people on both sides who tried to get a serious debate going on social care were marginalised and forced to give up, followed by the successive demolition of every attempt to tackle the problem.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Or more to the point steal many middle aged voters inheritance!
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
Which is the worst possible idea, being as it puts the burden on those currently working (and struggling with housing, tuition etc) rather than those benefiting from the service.
The increase could be focused on those over 50 in work whose children are more likely to have left home and are most likely to benefit from an inheritance and NI could be extended to over 65s too
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Hammond is going to propose an Amazon tax in the Budget, hopefully with lower business rates coming through from Councils too
And how is one supposed to define an “Amazon Tax” in a way that doesn’t simply have them posting parcels from Ireland - while simultaneously acting as a barrier to entry to smaller online retailers?
A Conservative Chancellor should be looking to help the HS retailers compete, rather than trying to find a way to punish online retailers. Business rates is a good place to start, as we have seen with corporation tax cutting rates can see an increase in revenue.
A stamp duty on online transactions by credit card and paypal?
Nooooo!!!! Stamp duties and “Amazon Tax”es are the sort of crap I expect to see the Shadow Chancellor proposing.
I’d start with a 50% discount on business rates for street-facing retail, and take it from there.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Hammond is going to propose an Amazon tax in the Budget, hopefully with lower business rates coming through from Councils too
And how is one supposed to define an “Amazon Tax” in a way that doesn’t simply have them posting parcels from Ireland - while simultaneously acting as a barrier to entry to smaller online retailers?
A Conservative Chancellor should be looking to help the HS retailers compete, rather than trying to find a way to punish online retailers. Business rates is a good place to start, as we have seen with corporation tax cutting rates can see an increase in revenue.
As a tax on Amazon revenues generated from the UK from packages delivered to UK addresses
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Hammond is going to propose an Amazon tax in the Budget, hopefully with lower business rates coming through from Councils too
And how is one supposed to define an “Amazon Tax” in a way that doesn’t simply have them posting parcels from Ireland - while simultaneously acting as a barrier to entry to smaller online retailers?
A Conservative Chancellor should be looking to help the HS retailers compete, rather than trying to find a way to punish online retailers. Business rates is a good place to start, as we have seen with corporation tax cutting rates can see an increase in revenue.
A stamp duty on online transactions by credit card and paypal?
Nooooo!!!! Stamp duties and “Amazon Tax”es are the sort of crap I expect to see the Shadow Chancellor proposing.
I’d start with a 50% discount on business rates for street-facing retail, and take it from there.
I do not back McDonnell's economic policy solutions, but he is at least trying to address the questions raised by the IPPR report chaired by Justin Welby earlier this week. These poll widespread support, across most of society, young and old, North and South, educated or not
That IPPR report is interesting. If the Tories or the Lib Dems had any sense they would be looking to it to give them ideas for policies not leaving the ground to malicious idiots like McDonnell. There is quite a lot in that report which chimes with May’s Mansion House speech as PM about helping the struggling middle.
McDonnell is no idiot. That is a bit simple even for you. He might be a lot of things , but not that.
What John is, is the least persuasive politician in British politics. He insults our intelligence, with tropes and lies, just like all politicians do, but in his case without the charisma to get away with it.
For example. Broad mainstream party? Broad church’s? Ha ha ha, fantasy. Such utter lies and drivel out of one of the least persuasive mouths in British politics. John me old chum, how does that work round a cabinet table, who holds the pen when writing the manifesto and setting the policy tone there? Party’s and parliaments are going to be dominated by one faction or another at any time. Stop insulting our intelligence. If you don’t have the communication skills, step aside.
However, let me speak for you. A John open and honest should say, sure cliques always dominate, but reason states what is worst of all is to be dominated by a clique who don’t actually believe in very much, except keeping newspaper editors happy, and avoiding clear water between them and other political parties so as not too spook voters. And then simply wasting majorities in the House of Commons. Such a ridiculous thing becomes a culture over time, across all the parties, in a house that doesn’t renew itself, a nation slowly fading into background, into history.
There is another way. Have a position and serious policy on issues, and get out there and air it, explain it, sell it, don’t be afraid of that. Get policy out there to be tested and challenged, for its not going to get fit for purpose unless it undergoes challenge and scrutiny.
This applies to all of you, from top the ship of state to rare poster to PB, bringing unique values and ideas to the wider debate. You can only let this country down the more tentative or disingenuous you are.
A pity then that your party wholly failed to do what you propose when the Tories tried - however ineptly - to address the social care issue last year.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
Yes, but it's pointlessly partisan to complain about "your party". I could reply by pointing to what happened when my party tried to address the issue, but I won't. The problem is the culture, the culture is driven by the media, and the media are driven by the ADHD-afflicted public.
If we're talking party politics, one reason I like Corbyn is that he calmly sticks to his guns when assailed by the media. We can disagree whether he has the right guns to stick to, but it's one of the qualities of leadership that you have sufficient self-confidence not to run for cover as soon as the Daily Mail has a go at you. (I like Oliver Letwin for the same reason, probably not a comparison that either would especially relish.)
But that's exactly what Oliver Letwin did ("run for cover") in 2001!
True. But not voluntarily - IIRC he was ordered to do so by the party leadership. He'd have much preferred to argue the case.
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
snip
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Or more to the point steal many middle aged voters inheritance!
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
When are we likely to finally see the almost mythical green paper on this?
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Or more to the point steal many middle aged voters inheritance!
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
Which is the worst possible idea, being as it puts the burden on those currently working (and struggling with housing, tuition etc) rather than those benefiting from the service.
The increase could be focused on those over 50 in work whose children are more likely to have left home and are most likely to benefit from an inheritance and NI could be extended to over 65s too
I agree on extending NI to over 65s, in fact I’d go further and merge it into income tax to reduce complexity and bureaucracy.
Making people over 50 (I’ve heard others suggest 40) pay more ignores the fact that people are now marrying much later, many don’t have have children until their late 30s or early 40s.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Or more to the point steal many middle aged voters inheritance!
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
Which is the worst possible idea, being as it puts the burden on those currently working (and struggling with housing, tuition etc) rather than those benefiting from the service.
The increase could be focused on those over 50 in work whose children are more likely to have left home and are most likely to benefit from an inheritance and NI could be extended to over 65s too
I certainly don't see why Hammond hasn't done the extension of NI to over 65s, other than pure electoral fear.
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
My magic bullet (on the assumption that actually building fuckloads more houses andninfastructure in a sustainable way is too hard a problem) is to carefully unpick the half dozen or so things that occurred between the mid 80s and 90s that enabled the Buy To Let mortgage to become viable.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
I have rented three times in my life for a total of three and three quarter years. Three year tenancies would have completely stuffed me.
The 3 years only works against, if that is the right word, the landlord, not the tenant iirc.
I think the idea has been dumped though by No.10 overruling Brokenshire.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Hammond is going to propose an Amazon tax in the Budget, hopefully with lower business rates coming through from Councils too
And how is one supposed to define an “Amazon Tax” in a way that doesn’t simply have them posting parcels from Ireland - while simultaneously acting as a barrier to entry to smaller online retailers?
A Conservative Chancellor should be looking to help the HS retailers compete, rather than trying to find a way to punish online retailers. Business rates is a good place to start, as we have seen with corporation tax cutting rates can see an increase in revenue.
As a tax on Amazon revenues generated from the UK from packages delivered to UK addresses
Would be completely illegal if it mentioned Amazon by name, leaving aside how the British government would collect taxes on an Irish company posting stuff from Ireland (assuming no customs tarrifs post-Brexit of course).
I don’t want to see the successful penalised, I want to see the playing field levelled.
67% of 25-34 owned a home in '91, as compared to 36% today.
The housing apocalypse in this country is an incredibly recent phenomenon with many of the architects of the issue still in power today both in politics and business.
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
The fundamental issues are the stupid way that housing benefit is calculated, the shortage of suitable properties and the zero interest rate policy
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Or more to the point steal many middle aged voters inheritance!
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
Which is the worst possible idea, being as it puts the burden on those currently working (and struggling with housing, tuition etc) rather than those benefiting from the service.
The increase could be focused on those over 50 in work whose children are more likely to have left home and are most likely to benefit from an inheritance and NI could be extended to over 65s too
I certainly don't see why Hammond hasn't done the extension of NI to over 65s, other than pure electoral fear.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Hammond is going to propose an Amazon tax in the Budget, hopefully with lower business rates coming through from Councils too
And how is one supposed to define an “Amazon Tax” in a way that doesn’t simply have them posting parcels from Ireland - while simultaneously acting as a barrier to entry to smaller online retailers?
A Conservative Chancellor should be looking to help the HS retailers compete, rather than trying to find a way to punish online retailers. Business rates is a good place to start, as we have seen with corporation tax cutting rates can see an increase in revenue.
A stamp duty on online transactions by credit card and paypal?
Nooooo!!!! Stamp duties and “Amazon Tax”es are the sort of crap I expect to see the Shadow Chancellor proposing.
I’d start with a 50% discount on business rates for street-facing retail, and take it from there.
I agree with you on business rates
Yes but in Hammond's mindset he'll need to make up the "lost revenue" somehow, the question is how?
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
My magic bullet (on the assumption that actually building fuckloads more houses andninfastructure in a sustainable way is too hard a problem) is to carefully unpick the half dozen or so things that occurred between the mid 80s and 90s that enabled the Buy To Let mortgage to become viable.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
I have rented three times in my life for a total of three and three quarter years. Three year tenancies would have completely stuffed me.
The renter doesn't have to stay for 3 years. The landlord has to guarantee 3 years if they want it.
Then I can see a lot of properties being left empty rather than rented out.
Indeed. Sadly the messing up of that announcement has only made it much more difficult to address the issue. The government should have had every available minister on every media outlet for that whole weekend selling the plan - and asking those critical of it what they would do instead.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
Wasn't Nick Timothy behind it getting into the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto? Pity he's been sidelined because original out-of-the-box thinking is needed for difficult policies like this.
I believe it was Nick Timothy, yes. Unsurprisingly I agree completely on the need for out-ofthe-box thinking around government, although proposals need to be stress-tested for unintended consequences and unwanted behavioural changes before they make it to the statute books.
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
Hammond is going to propose an Amazon tax in the Budget, hopefully with lower business rates coming through from Councils too
And how is one supposed to define an “Amazon Te an increase in revenue.
As a tax on Amazon revenues generated from the UK from packages delivered to UK addresses
Would be completely illegal if it mentioned Amazon by name, leaving aside how the British government would collect taxes on an Irish company posting stuff from Ireland (assuming no customs tarrifs post-Brexit of course).
I don’t want to see the successful penalised, I want to see the playing field levelled.
Anyway, work to do. Taxes don’t pay themselves!
Would it be illegal post Brexit and with Trump also threatening Amazon? Would be levied on arrival in UK or on completion of online sale to a UK address. I imagine the EU are not great Amazon fans either.
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.
snip
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Or more to the point steal many middle aged voters inheritance!
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
When are we likely to finally see the almost mythical green paper on this?
It’s still easy to buy property in the North West now. All my nephews and nieces own property and my daughter has moved to the area in part because she has a realistic chance of buying property and, for the price, much nicer property than she could get in London or the South East. She also has a job with a pension so saving is a realistic proposition for her.
I suspect that at least one of my other children will make the same calculation.
Agree; my extended family 'up there’ seem to have overall lower living costs that those in Essex or Kent. Property in the latter seems even’worse’ than N Essex. And Eldest Granddaughter, having gone North for uni, has no desire to come back South.
Ditto the Midlands and ditto quite a few areas commutable to London. But the special snowflakes in the media want to live in Zone 2 in hipster flats, and whinge accordingly.
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably hart of the problem. I
I quite agree.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
But the best solution to that sort of problem is usually the commission or the inquiry. In that case we had the Dilnot report from 2011. I am not saying we needed to accept it all but surely the sensible way forward was to use that as a largely non contentious base and then fine tune it. That, unfortunately, is not what May did nor how she chose to present it.
I thought she proposed to steal Grannies houses.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
Or more to the point steal many middle aged voters inheritance!
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
Which is the worst possible idea, being as it puts the burden on those currently working (and struggling with housing, tuition etc) rather than those benefiting from the service.
The increase could be focused on those over 50 in work whose children are more likely to have left home and are most likely to benefit from an inheritance and NI could be extended to over 65s too
I agree on extending NI to over 65s, in fact I’d go further and merge it into income tax to reduce complexity and bureaucracy.
Making people over 50 (I’ve heard others suggest 40) pay more ignores the fact that people are now marrying much later, many don’t have have children until their late 30s or early 40s.
I would make NI hypothecated for the NHS and social care.
The average age of UK marriage is under 40 and of course the average age of a mother giving birth is 30 so the vast majority of parents with children living at home and still at school would not be affected if an NI rise was targeted at over 50s
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Although I liked the betting logic behind Alastair Meeks' piece and invested accordingly, I too was taken aback by his extraordinary use of the description of the term "far right" to any convert away from Sweden's "cradle to grave" socialist culture. It probably says more about Alastair's political convictions than about the political divide in present day Sweden.
Michael Gove has definitely been conspicuous by his absence from the media over the summer.
Presumably on "don't interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" grounds. The (other) Brexiteers are making such a horse's arse of things it's probably best to let them fight amongst themselves.
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Although I liked the betting logic behind Alastair Meeks' piece and invested accordingly, I too was taken aback by his extraordinary use of the description "far right" to any convert away from Sweden's "cradle to grave" socialist culture. It probably says more about Alastair's own political convictions than about the political divide in present day Sweden.
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that:
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings. 2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model. 3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves. 4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution. 5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country. 6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing. 7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies. 8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment.
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that:
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings. 2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model. 3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves. 4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution. 5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country. 6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing. 7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies. 8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment.
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
There are practical problems to this. Many properties that are rented out are leasehold flats. The lease will have a restriction to the length of time it can be continually rented: mine is two years. An AST of six months with an option to renew fits this nicely and enables me to rent out my flat if I get a job elsewhere in the country. But three-year-tenancies would kill that idea stone dead.
So this thread hasn't yet got to making Amazon hire a guy with a red flag to walk in front of the Prime van but I'm pretty sure it's coming.
Kind of weird how hard it's getting to tell the Corbynists from the Conservatives.
Politics today is all about the past. Nostalgia drives Brexit, Corbyn and Trump. Even the Blairites, who claim to champion progress are looking back. One of the reasons they are so weak at the moment.
One day people will look to future and consider new ideas, but not today.
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that:
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings. 2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model. 3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves. 4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution. 5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country. 6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing. 7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies. 8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment.
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
On the topic of a graduate tax: wasn’t one of the problems the fact that we couldn’t discriminate between U.K. nationals and those from the rest of the EU, so any students from the rest of the EU who came here would get a free education and only pay a graduate tax if they were employed here? In which case this is something that could potentially be revisited after Brexit.
Thinking about it I’m probably missing something important here as if this were true the leave campaign would have used it already.
Walmart is the prime source of damage to small town US. That Bezos thinks that Trump is a liar and a moron and the WT publishes such views is of course wholly coincidental to abusing Amazon. If the WT was supine, Amazon wouldn’t be a target.
Comments
But newspapers and TV journalists are paid to attract audiences, and a serious discussion of social care is undeniably harder to pull an audience for than a "Death Tax Row Hits X" story. It is consequently extremely dangerous to make new proposals - either they'll be ignored or they'll be presented as bonkers (the ERG debate on whether to publish their alternative thoughts is a good example - they are objectively correct that if they do so, they'll be instantly rubbished). Politics therefore becomes defined by a series of attempts to win votes by attacking the other side.
And it comes back to us - the general public. If we're not willing to engage with new ideas constructively, we're part of the problem. I instinctively distrust the ERG, but I'll read what they have to say and try to treat it objectively. Similarly, people who don't like McDonnell should still give a hearing to his proposals to increase workers' stake in their companies. The question shouldn't be "What's his game and how can we defeat him?" but "Is this a useful idea and if not can it be changed to make it useful?"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/ukperspectives2016housingandhomeownershipintheuk/2016-05-25
67% of 25-34 owned a home in '91, as compared to 36% today.
The housing apocalypse in this country is an incredibly recent phenomenon with many of the architects of the issue still in power today both in politics and business.
In fact it is looking increasingly likely May will deliver a largely BINO Brexit with a long transition period and quite possibly leading the Tories through to the next general election.
Of course this is very largely nonsense and has made house purchase for many far more difficult than it should have been. Peoples circumstances vary enormously and so do the risks that they can take. A person like me in 1984 on a laughable salary had confident expectations, largely fulfilled, of earning more money in the years to come and had secure prospects. Of course I could borrow a much higher multiple without risk. Conversely, someone in insecure employment, however well paid, needs to think about the commitment of a monthly mortgage payment in good and bad.
Personally, I didn't see much wrong with 130% mortgages for most people provided they were in secure employment. They got credit at a much lower cost than they would on their plastic. Inflation would generally reduce the risk over time. Of course the lender was running a bigger risk and would charge a premium for that. They themselves had to watch the systemic risk they were running as lenders. But I recall reading statistics showing that the default rate for these loans was no higher than average. Being in negative equity was of no real consequence provided the borrower could service the loan every month.
In seeking to protect the few (and some idiot lenders) from an adverse experience the many are cut out of home ownership. It is wrong and we should stop it.
They have a Green Party, a Left Party, a centre left Social Democrat Party, a Centre Party, a Liberal Party, a Christian Democrat Party, a centre right Moderate Party and a hard right anti EU, anti immigration Swedish Democrat Party all with seats in Sweden's Parliament
We need to have a sensible debate on a number of serious structural issues - housing and social care being the most urgent. This requires thoughtful debate rather than everyone taking sides and using perjorative language based purely on who puts forward any given proposal.
The party isn’t going to vote for someone with limited (or nonexistent) ministerial expertise to take over as PM.
A pity then that your party wholly failed to do what you propose when the Tories tried - however ineptly - to address the social care issue last year.
All that’s happened is that no party will now touch the issue for fear of the same thing happening to them.
It’s by far the best and most workable proposal anyone’s yet brought forward, and once the Brexit legislation is out of the way I’d like to see it in Parliament.
It’s still easy to buy property in the North West now. All my nephews and nieces own property and my daughter has moved to the area in part because she has a realistic chance of buying property and, for the price, much nicer property than she could get in London or the South East. She also has a job with a pension so saving is a realistic proposition for her.
I suspect that at least one of my other children will make the same calculation.
Stupidity
Labour thinks of itself as the divinely appointed sole arbiter of progressive politics. You get sensible people like Stella Creasy and Chuka Umunna whose politics have basically nothing in common with Corbyn et al, but who would never, ever, countenance leaving. Labour won't admit the possibility that anyone else can advance progressive ideas. It's amazingly arrogant, and intensely frustrating for the rest of us who might consider ourselves progressives but are turned off by Labour.
I would love a progressive party to challenge Labour in England and Wales, just as the SNP has done in Scotland. But there's no sign of it happening.
Thats the way people on the doorsteps i visited thought!!!
https://twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1038681088963633152?s=20
If we're talking party politics, one reason I like Corbyn is that he calmly sticks to his guns when assailed by the media. We can disagree whether he has the right guns to stick to, but it's one of the qualities of leadership that you have sufficient self-confidence not to run for cover as soon as the Daily Mail has a go at you. (I like Oliver Letwin for the same reason, probably not a comparison that either would especially relish.)
https://twitter.com/LeaveMnsLeave/status/1037696839707975682?s=20
And it was introduced in the teeth of Cabinet opposition during a manifesto launch.
An epic misjudgement.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
Priti Patel knows that and is working the rubber chicken circuit hard, she is addressing our Association's annual dinner next month
So as a result May stays, probably for years
As an example, the High St model of retail is dying on its arse thanks to huge out-of-town malls and online competition - yet no-one with the Chancellor’s ear seems to have a clue what to do about it.
The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
'And they would have more sense than the MPs'
Made our morning BJO
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/philip-hammond-amazon-tax-high-street-retail-online-business-rates-a8486446.html
The Greens are already the 'progressive' alternative to Labour in England and unlike Plaid and the SNP not Nationalists either
A Conservative Chancellor should be looking to help the HS retailers compete, rather than trying to find a way to punish online retailers. Business rates is a good place to start, as we have seen with corporation tax cutting rates can see an increase in revenue.
(Available as a proofreader, incidentally. Feel free to message me if you have some work you want doing).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/ukperspectives2016housingandhomeownershipintheuk/2016-05-25
Stamp duties and “Amazon Tax”es are the sort of crap I expect to see the Shadow Chancellor proposing.
I’d start with a 50% discount on business rates for street-facing retail, and take it from there.
7pm UK time.
https://www.thelocal.se/20180909/live-blog-swedish-election-day-sweden-2018-vote
For example. Broad mainstream party? Broad church’s? Ha ha ha, fantasy. Such utter lies and drivel out of one of the least persuasive mouths in British politics. John me old chum, how does that work round a cabinet table, who holds the pen when writing the manifesto and setting the policy tone there? Party’s and parliaments are going to be dominated by one faction or another at any time. Stop insulting our intelligence. If you don’t have the communication skills, step aside.
However, let me speak for you. A John open and honest should say, sure cliques always dominate, but reason states what is worst of all is to be dominated by a clique who don’t actually believe in very much, except keeping newspaper editors happy, and avoiding clear water between them and other political parties so as not too spook voters. And then simply wasting majorities in the House of Commons. Such a ridiculous thing becomes a culture over time, across all the parties, in a house that doesn’t renew itself, a nation slowly fading into background, into history.
There is another way. Have a position and serious policy on issues, and get out there and air it, explain it, sell it, don’t be afraid of that. Get policy out there to be tested and challenged, for its not going to get fit for purpose unless it undergoes challenge and scrutiny.
This applies to all of you, from top the ship of state to rare poster to PB, bringing unique values and ideas to the wider debate. You can only let this country down the more tentative or disingenuous you are.
Mr. Quincel, thanks
Making people over 50 (I’ve heard others suggest 40) pay more ignores the fact that people are now marrying much later, many don’t have have children until their late 30s or early 40s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkuu0Lwb5EM
I think the idea has been dumped though by No.10 overruling Brokenshire.
I don’t want to see the successful penalised, I want to see the playing field levelled.
Anyway, work to do. Taxes don’t pay themselves!
The trolls of Corbyn can just get on with the lunch now then, with you doing their work for them?
Trump ''Amazon is doing great damage to tax paying retailers. Towns, cities and states throughout the US are being hurt - many jobs being lost!'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/donald-trump-amazon-value-5-billion-drop-off-shares-tweet-social-media-jeff-bezos-a7896266.html
[Should stress I spend more time on that when doing my own books or checking others' work than I do checking my posts here].
Edited extra bit: Mr. Ace, as informal text I treat posts akin to dialogue, and therefore with a looser demand on grammar (and occasionally spelling).
Send £15 plus Hammond Tax to me
The average age of UK marriage is under 40 and of course the average age of a mother giving birth is 30 so the vast majority of parents with children living at home and still at school would not be affected if an NI rise was targeted at over 50s
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsbyparentscharacteristicsinenglandandwales/2015
...
Incidentally, if any PBers are Swedish, do vote for the Moderates.
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings.
2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model.
3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves.
4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution.
5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country.
6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing.
7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies.
8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment.
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
Kind of weird how hard it's getting to tell the Corbynists from the Conservatives.
Our Labour supporting friends on here sit on their hands rather than enabling a racist party, or
Chuka gets deselected.
This inhibits moving house, thus making renting for a transient population more attractive.
It also encourages building extensions rather than buying a new house.
Replacing a transactional stamp duty with an annual tax on land values would make more sense.
https://twitter.com/MotoGP/status/1038748128940314624
One day people will look to future and consider new ideas, but not today.
Thinking about it I’m probably missing something important here as if this were true the leave campaign would have used it already.
Walmart is the prime source of damage to small town US. That Bezos thinks that Trump is a liar and a moron and the WT publishes such views is of course wholly coincidental to abusing Amazon. If the WT was supine, Amazon wouldn’t be a target.
And f the Nimbys.
Also it would lift our anaemic economic growth rate.