Blairites staging a coup...

[Sandydragon]

People go where there are jobs that allow them to live the life they want to lead, or they compromise.

The uk average house price is massively skewed by including London prices. What's the average house price if you discount London prices? That would be an interesting figure to look at.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

If you take London house prices out then you take London wages, which are well over £40k, out as well. So the national average wage is probably a few thousand less than £26k, and the average house price, not including London, is £180k, was WT just posted.

So you are still looking at 8/9 to 1.

In 1980, the average wage wage was £6k and the average house price was £22k. So 3.5 to 1.

Though we shouldn't ignore interest rates then and now, and relative deposits needed. And that back in 1980 people saved a lot more rather than fritter their money away on modern consumer goods which now so often are considered essential

Worth considering help to buy as well. I know its only for new homes, but it hugely reduces the deposit requirements.

[jared_7]

You can buy a house around here for £30000. Actually, with some schemes you can buy for £1.

I think the problem with the UK market is that its very London focused. The rest of the UK is a different situation.

Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

Yet home ownership is well ahead of where it was in the post war period..

I haven't argued we were better off in and just after the Great Depression, have I?

Look at the home ownership rates over the last 20-30 years, for all generations after the boomers specifically. The aging population of baby boomers obviously own a ton of property, not going so well the rest of us is it?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Surely you of all people must understand the difference between advice and a requirement? No?

ACOBA is an advisory body, it has no statutory powers to enforce compliance.

"The Rules are prepared by the Cabinet Office and approved by the Prime Minister:they have no statutory basis and include no sanctions for non-compliance"
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 04/404.pdf

If you had any self-respect, you'd admit that it is in fact you who are wrong, not I.

I'll be delighted to admit that I'm wrong when:

1. You show what the rules were that thatcher abolished.
2. You show that the EU has an actual ban on people taking up employment with sanctions, rather than a simple requirement that they do not.
3. You explain why you went for the 2012 version of the guidance rather than the 2016 version.

1. News article that I read, but can't find right now.

2. "Barroso was hired 20 months after stepping down, shortly after an 18-month “cooling off” period when ex-commissioners must seek clearance for new jobs to avoid conflicts of interest."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... -sachs-job

3. It was a review that took place in 2012. Its recommendations were not followed up. ACOBA has not been reviewed since then, as far as I am aware.

1. well let me know when you find the mythical article or better still an actual source.
2. Must seek clearance, what you mean like they have to here for 2 years?
3. I provided the link to the guidance issued in january this year.


So you've got a fair bit to go before you demonstrate that you were right. Good luck with that.

[kk67]

40 years ago a worker could buy a house and support a nuclear family, all on unskilled wages.

Nowadays two paren't working full time, i.e.; twice the work hours, with University degrees, would struggle to buy a one bedroom apartment.

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

I'm not conflating anything.

And you appear to be making my argument for me.

I was quoting Digby.

That was apparent to me. And I think UG will agree that it was a bloody good point....well made.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

Yet home ownership is well ahead of where it was in the post war period..

I haven't argued we were better off in and just after the Great Depression, have I?

Look at the home ownership rates over the last 20-30 years, for all generations after the boomers specifically. The aging population of baby boomers obviously own a ton of property, not going so well the rest of us is it?

Older people in owning more property shocker.

Ok so here is a link to the facts.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... using.html

If being an owner occupier is a virtue then the peak is 2001. Trying to say that things are worse now by virtue of one cohort who aren't doing particularly well is odd and obviously statistically nonsense. I might as well pick the wealthy and say "See they're doing really well so it doesn't matter what's happening elsewhere".

[Digby]

Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

Yet home ownership is well ahead of where it was in the post war period..

I haven't argued we were better off in and just after the Great Depression, have I?

Look at the home ownership rates over the last 20-30 years, for all generations after the boomers specifically. The aging population of baby boomers obviously own a ton of property, not going so well the rest of us is it?

Those older generations who bought property did crazy thing like not go out very often for meals, rarely go for nights out down the pub, not spend much on clothing/luxury items and what they did was paid for not bought on credit, not go on holiday, run one or no car, and spend 2-3 years saving an amount each month approximate to their mortgage payments so when they went to building society they had 2-3 years of showing they could make payments in addition to having saved the deposit. The current lot seem to want to run up a lot of debt and then complain they can't afford a mortgage and/or are not allowed to take on still more debt.

That's not wholly fair as there is something of a spike in the cost of housing. Though I'm not sure the behaviour of many gives them cause to complain, even if I also think there's much to be done in rebuilding the social housing stock, maintaining it properly, and not allowing it to be run down which in addition to spiking house prices has also spiked the cost of the welfare state.

[kk67]

I'm not conflating anything.

And you appear to be making my argument for me.

I was quoting Digby.

Sorry. My bad.

Nice work Fellas,
Laugh..?....I nearly shat.

[kk67]

Yet home ownership is well ahead of where it was in the post war period..

I haven't argued we were better off in and just after the Great Depression, have I?

Look at the home ownership rates over the last 20-30 years, for all generations after the boomers specifically. The aging population of baby boomers obviously own a ton of property, not going so well the rest of us is it?

Those older generations who bought property did crazy thing like not go out very often for meals, rarely go for nights out down the pub, not spend much on clothing/luxury items and what they did was paid for not bought on credit, not go on holiday, run one or no car, and spend 2-3 years saving an amount each month approximate to their mortgage payments so when they went to building society they had 2-3 years of showing they could make payments in addition to having saved the deposit. The current lot seem to want to run up a lot of debt and then complain they can't afford a mortgage and/or are not allowed to take on still more debt.

That's not wholly fair as there is something of a spike in the cost of housing. Though I'm not sure the behaviour of many gives them cause to complain, even if I also think there's much to be done in rebuilding the social housing stock, maintaining it properly, and not allowing it to be run down which in addition to spiking house prices has also spiked the cost of the welfare state.

Those older generations were buying their houses for 2-3k.

[cashead]

I haven't argued we were better off in and just after the Great Depression, have I?

Look at the home ownership rates over the last 20-30 years, for all generations after the boomers specifically. The aging population of baby boomers obviously own a ton of property, not going so well the rest of us is it?

Those older generations who bought property did crazy thing like not go out very often for meals, rarely go for nights out down the pub, not spend much on clothing/luxury items and what they did was paid for not bought on credit, not go on holiday, run one or no car, and spend 2-3 years saving an amount each month approximate to their mortgage payments so when they went to building society they had 2-3 years of showing they could make payments in addition to having saved the deposit. The current lot seem to want to run up a lot of debt and then complain they can't afford a mortgage and/or are not allowed to take on still more debt.

That's not wholly fair as there is something of a spike in the cost of housing. Though I'm not sure the behaviour of many gives them cause to complain, even if I also think there's much to be done in rebuilding the social housing stock, maintaining it properly, and not allowing it to be run down which in addition to spiking house prices has also spiked the cost of the welfare state.

Those older generations were buying their houses for 2-3k.

Pretty much. House prices have been jacked up to the point where whatever the Boomers paid for their homes will maybe get you one room, maybe even half.

[kk67]

Pretty much. House prices have been jacked up to the point where whatever the Boomers paid for their homes will maybe get you one room, maybe even half.

I feel for the youngsters.

[jared_7]

Yet home ownership is well ahead of where it was in the post war period..

I haven't argued we were better off in and just after the Great Depression, have I?

Look at the home ownership rates over the last 20-30 years, for all generations after the boomers specifically. The aging population of baby boomers obviously own a ton of property, not going so well the rest of us is it?

Older people in owning more property shocker.

Ok so here is a link to the facts.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... using.html

If being an owner occupier is a virtue then the peak is 2001. Trying to say that things are worse now by virtue of one cohort who aren't doing particularly well is odd and obviously statistically nonsense. I might as well pick the wealthy and say "See they're doing really well so it doesn't matter what's happening elsewhere".

Eug, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. I get Digby is basically a walking Friedman manifesto, but are you trying to suggest housing, probably the most imperative purchase in someone's life, isn't getting more unaffordable?

The average home was about 3 times the average wage. It is now 8 times. Those are in real terms.

Your brought home ownership rates into it which confuse the matter. Why? Because they say nothing about the level of debt services to own those homes. I showed you trends showing ownership rates in younger generations, which directly suggests affordability is getting worse and it is taking longer for people to get on that rung.

But people need a roof over their head, and they have the best part of 50 years of working solely to achieve that. So home ownership rates will be sticky.

But my original point was a single father could support a wife and 2 kids and own a decent sized home on unskilled wages.

Now you would need 2 university educated parents working full time to buy a small flat over a similar time period.

Home ownership statistic is the same, affordability and financial pressure are most certainly not.

This stuff is quite literally plastered everywhere on a daily basis.

[UGagain]

You can buy a house around here for £30000. Actually, with some schemes you can buy for £1.

I think the problem with the UK market is that its very London focused. The rest of the UK is a different situation.

Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

Yet home ownership is well ahead of where it was in the post war period..

And i'm sure that you'd argue that private debt levels and debt servicing levels i.e. money being channelled to the banking sector has nothing to do with that.

[UGagain]

Yet home ownership is well ahead of where it was in the post war period..

I haven't argued we were better off in and just after the Great Depression, have I?

Look at the home ownership rates over the last 20-30 years, for all generations after the boomers specifically. The aging population of baby boomers obviously own a ton of property, not going so well the rest of us is it?

Those older generations who bought property did crazy thing like not go out very often for meals, rarely go for nights out down the pub, not spend much on clothing/luxury items and what they did was paid for not bought on credit, not go on holiday, run one or no car, and spend 2-3 years saving an amount each month approximate to their mortgage payments so when they went to building society they had 2-3 years of showing they could make payments in addition to having saved the deposit. The current lot seem to want to run up a lot of debt and then complain they can't afford a mortgage and/or are not allowed to take on still more debt.

That's not wholly fair as there is something of a spike in the cost of housing. Though I'm not sure the behaviour of many gives them cause to complain, even if I also think there's much to be done in rebuilding the social housing stock, maintaining it properly, and not allowing it to be run down which in addition to spiking house prices has also spiked the cost of the welfare state.

Oooooooooh scary. THE COST of the welfare state.

[Digby]

I get Digby is basically a walking Friedman manifesto

I'd actually lean more toward being a Keynesian, but with an understanding of what that actually means.

[UGagain]

I get Digby is basically a walking Friedman manifesto

I'd actually lean more toward being a Keynesian, but with an understanding of what that actually means.

You've shown repeatedly with your silly comments about 'printing money' that you don't understand macroeconomics.

[kk67]

I get Digby is basically a walking Friedman manifesto

This is going to be trouble.

[canta_brian]

Back on topic for a moment.

Seems the plp has decided how they want this leadership election to run.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36877185

Anyone in the plp know what they might do if Corbyn wins again. I see a whole lot of positions being pretty much untenable. So do they create a Blairite party. Or do they resign as mps and spark a raft of byelections?

[UGagain]

Back on topic for a moment.

Seems the plp has decided how they want this leadership election to run.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36877185

Anyone in the plp know what they might do if Corbyn wins again. I see a whole lot of positions being pretty much untenable. So do they create a Blairite party. Or do they resign as mps and spark a raft of byelections?

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the Blairites' antics.

Meanwhile, leadership rival Mr Smith said his wife, Liz, had been a victim of online abuse and claimed there was now a level of abuse, anti-Semitism and misogyny in Labour that was not there before Mr Corbyn became leader.

So he's a disingenuous little shit that can't get the backing of the membership and his first instinct is to insult their intelligence.

The Blairites should go where they belong, the Conservative Party.

[canta_brian]

Back on topic for a moment.

Seems the plp has decided how they want this leadership election to run.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36877185

Anyone in the plp know what they might do if Corbyn wins again. I see a whole lot of positions being pretty much untenable. So do they create a Blairite party. Or do they resign as mps and spark a raft of byelections?

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the Blairites' antics.

Meanwhile, leadership rival Mr Smith said his wife, Liz, had been a victim of online abuse and claimed there was now a level of abuse, anti-Semitism and misogyny in Labour that was not there before Mr Corbyn became leader.

So he's a disingenuous little shit that can't get the backing of the membership and his first instinct is to insult their intelligence.

The Blairites should go where they belong, the Conservative Party.

Pretty much this. What I can't work out is how being pretty much identical to the tory candidate on policy will make them more electable. If this leadership election is proving 1 thing to me it's that they are not going to win on personality.

If Owen's wife received a torrent of abuse maybe he should ask himself if she is cow, rather than claiming it's Corbyn's fault.

[UGagain]

Back on topic for a moment.

Seems the plp has decided how they want this leadership election to run.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36877185

Anyone in the plp know what they might do if Corbyn wins again. I see a whole lot of positions being pretty much untenable. So do they create a Blairite party. Or do they resign as mps and spark a raft of byelections?

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the Blairites' antics.

Meanwhile, leadership rival Mr Smith said his wife, Liz, had been a victim of online abuse and claimed there was now a level of abuse, anti-Semitism and misogyny in Labour that was not there before Mr Corbyn became leader.

So he's a disingenuous little shit that can't get the backing of the membership and his first instinct is to insult their intelligence.

The Blairites should go where they belong, the Conservative Party.

Pretty much this. What I can't work out is how being pretty much identical to the tory candidate on policy will make them more electable. If this leadership election is proving 1 thing to me it's that they are not going to win on personality.

If Owen's wife received a torrent of abuse maybe he should ask himself if she is cow, rather than claiming it's Corbyn's fault.

These people cannot read what's in bold print in front of them let alone the tea leaves. There's a huge groundswell of protest against elite rule out there but their sense of entitlement makes them think that they know better than the riff raff.

The general public increasingly doesn't believe the neoliberal lies and all these idiots are selling is neoliberal lies. And they're as condescending as they are wrong.

Anyone can see that austerity is a lie.

[Digby]

Pretty much this. What I can't work out is how being pretty much identical to the tory candidate on policy will make them more electable. If this leadership election is proving 1 thing to me it's that they are not going to win on personality.

There's certainly less difference between those on the right of the Labour party and the Conservatives than Corbyn and the Conservatives, but we'd still be a long way off them being identical. For anyone who wants a shouting match it might be more interesting to pitch in a Corbyn to get a more strident campaign, and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise. For most people we are more in the centre, whether perhaps centre left as I'd put myself, or centre right which is perhaps where the votes are to win an election. I also have no more problem with a more nuanced debate over what policy is and how it'll be implemented, indeed I'd prefer it over the screaming irrelevancies in the current shadow cabinet.

Just one other thought, at some point the constituency boundaries will be changed, they're simply not fair to the Conservatives in practice, and whilst that isn't an issue they should nonetheless give a more balanced take on who we are even if it happens to return a party I might prefer not to see in power. So Labour are unlikely to win back Scotland and are likely to lose seats when the constituency changes come in - in the face of either of those a move to left of the unelectable Red Ed seems beyond daft, but instead of seeking to reverse their decline they seem hellbent on advancing it, and in the process leave a second term austerity government (at least until Brexit) not being held to account.

[UGagain]

Pretty much this. What I can't work out is how being pretty much identical to the tory candidate on policy will make them more electable. If this leadership election is proving 1 thing to me it's that they are not going to win on personality.

There's certainly less difference between those on the right of the Labour party and the Conservatives than Corbyn and the Conservatives, but we'd still be a long way off them being identical. For anyone who wants a shouting match it might be more interesting to pitch in a Corbyn to get a more strident campaign, and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise. For most people we are more in the centre, whether perhaps centre left as I'd put myself, or centre right which is perhaps where the votes are to win an election. I also have no more problem with a more nuanced debate over what policy is and how it'll be implemented, indeed I'd prefer it over the screaming irrelevancies in the current shadow cabinet.

Just one other thought, at some point the constituency boundaries will be changed, they're simply not fair to the Conservatives in practice, and whilst that isn't an issue they should nonetheless give a more balanced take on who we are even if it happens to return a party I might prefer not to see in power. So Labour are unlikely to win back Scotland and are likely to lose seats when the constituency changes come in - in the face of either of those a move to left of the unelectable Red Ed seems beyond daft, but instead of seeking to reverse their decline they seem hellbent on advancing it, and in the process leave a second term austerity government (at least until Brexit) not being held to account.

There you go again, speaking for 'most people'.

And pretending to be on the left.

That's pretty daft when in the same post you describe the austerity lite Milliband as Red Ed.

People are sick and tired of your neoliberal bullshit, dude.

Have some dignity will you?

[Which Tyler]

These people cannot read what's in bold print in front of them let alone the tea leaves. There's a huge groundswell of protest against elite rule out there but their sense of entitlement makes them think that they know better than the riff raff.

The general public increasingly doesn't believe the neoliberal lies and all these idiots are selling is neoliberal lies. And they're as condescending as they are wrong.

Anyone can see that austerity is a lie.

There you go again, speaking for 'most people'.
Have some dignity will you?

And again, a "stunning lack of self-awareness"

[UGagain]

These people cannot read what's in bold print in front of them let alone the tea leaves. There's a huge groundswell of protest against elite rule out there but their sense of entitlement makes them think that they know better than the riff raff.

The general public increasingly doesn't believe the neoliberal lies and all these idiots are selling is neoliberal lies. And they're as condescending as they are wrong.

Anyone can see that austerity is a lie.

There you go again, speaking for 'most people'.
Have some dignity will you?

And again, a "stunning lack of self-awareness"

Broken record. Stick to the issues if you can recognise them.

Do you really think that this sort of outright lying is dignified?

and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise.

This poster lives under a bridge.

So, I'm commenting on the comment made and you are making a personal attack, again.

I don't care whether you like me or not. Just stop whining will you? It's not going to make me change my views or my politics.

[Which Tyler]

Broken record. Stick to the issues if you can recognise them.

Do you really think that this sort of outright lying is dignified?

and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise.

This poster lives under a bridge.

So, I'm commenting on the comment made and you are making a personal attack, again.

I don't care whether you like me or not. Just stop whining will you? It's not going to make me change my views or my politics.

Aww diddums - still not true, however often you cry abuse - I've sent a little abuse at you once; the above is the closest you've come being civil with me.

However, I am very sorry I abused you by using your own words, quoted, and originally posted all of an hour apart from each other. Strange how your own words are abusive when directed at yourself, but not when directed at another poster?

I'm perfectly happy to talk about issues - but not when you are around because you deliberately, actively stifle discussion, and I'm not interested in you just shouting everyone down. Not that you're going to stop, but hey, it's good to point out you hypocrisy from time to time - even if you are so blind that you will not see it.