Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have gained a majority, i.e. "won":
2015
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have failed to gain a majority, i.e. "lost":
2001 2005 2010 2017
The Tories cannot change their perception or improve their results until they acknowledge they lost the election. The longer they kid themselves that it's all ok, because they won the most seats and votes, the later the rebuilding starts and the longer it takes.
I hope this dawns on them very, very slowly.
Well, they did win the election because they're going to form a government.. otherwise.. who won the election?
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
It CAN be readily denied. The ONS have done some interesting work on it. In short, employees aged 21 in 1995 and were 39 when the statistics were created in 2013, will have earned a total of 40% more in real terms that a 21-year-old who started work in 1975 when they hit 39. Similarly, those who started work in 1985 were 18% better off than their 1975 counterparts. People feel worse off because things have stagnated wage-wise since 2008. (So, my personal theory is that back in the day we saved more because there wasn't the pressure to have the latest gizmo here and now that there is today. And because today we spend more money on things the oldies just didn't have back in the day.)
The reality is that the current crop are (or should be) better placed than those in the earlier generation. In addition, unlike the 1970s and 1980s, real household disposable income per head grew almost continuously through the 1990s and 2000s, irrespective of recessions. In addition, to debunk your theory, the ONS state that pensioner (and single parent) households are more likely to be at the lower end of the income distribution. So, while it is undoubtedly true that some older people have houses which are worth a lot of money, it is also true to say that they are often asset rich but cash poor and presumably the young will get to inherit whatever the Government decides not to tax.
In addition, according to the ONS, in 2008/09 an estimated 18 per cent of individuals in the UK were from households with low income – below 60 per cent of contemporary median income. This is virtually unchanged since 1998/99 .
Thanks @cafcfan an interesting if brief read from the ONS archives. Does that not refer to income rather than wealth (we all earn more but everything costs more) and it sort of proves the point for those of us that were in on it at the beginning it has been pretty good (if you managed to buy a property) but it is getting increasingly difficult for younger people.
Also you say that older people are often asset rich rather than cash rich and although I should have been clearer than just saying "money" I meant to group cash and assets together. So older people are holding appreciating assets that are beyond the reach of most younger people. At the same time we are saddling those who try to chase us up the ladder with increasing debt e.g. student loans & rents.
You are right about some pensioners being poor asset & cash but I was referring to all and also those over 45 rather than just pensioners. As a group we (older people) have become richer and political parties have skewed their spending toward older people because until last week young people were not politically active enough.
And yes my kids will inherit my assets so that will a third each of the £100k left after paying my social care costs, enough for a deposit on a house in Barrow I believe.
Do you have anymore stats that are a bit more detailed as happy to be proved wrong but not sure that this is compelling.
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
It CAN be readily denied. The ONS have done some interesting work on it. In short, employees aged 21 in 1995 and were 39 when the statistics were created in 2013, will have earned a total of 40% more in real terms that a 21-year-old who started work in 1975 when they hit 39. Similarly, those who started work in 1985 were 18% better off than their 1975 counterparts. People feel worse off because things have stagnated wage-wise since 2008. (So, my personal theory is that back in the day we saved more because there wasn't the pressure to have the latest gizmo here and now that there is today. And because today we spend more money on things the oldies just didn't have back in the day.)
The reality is that the current crop are (or should be) better placed than those in the earlier generation. In addition, unlike the 1970s and 1980s, real household disposable income per head grew almost continuously through the 1990s and 2000s, irrespective of recessions. In addition, to debunk your theory, the ONS state that pensioner (and single parent) households are more likely to be at the lower end of the income distribution. So, while it is undoubtedly true that some older people have houses which are worth a lot of money, it is also true to say that they are often asset rich but cash poor and presumably the young will get to inherit whatever the Government decides not to tax.
In addition, according to the ONS, in 2008/09 an estimated 18 per cent of individuals in the UK were from households with low income – below 60 per cent of contemporary median income. This is virtually unchanged since 1998/99 .
Thanks @cafcfan an interesting if brief read from the ONS archives. Does that not refer to income rather than wealth (we all earn more but everything costs more) and it sort of proves the point for those of us that were in on it at the beginning it has been pretty good (if you managed to buy a property) but it is getting increasingly difficult for younger people.
Also you say that older people are often asset rich rather than cash rich and although I should have been clearer than just saying "money" I meant to group cash and assets together. So older people are holding appreciating assets that are beyond the reach of most younger people. At the same time we are saddling those who try to chase us up the ladder with increasing debt e.g. student loans & rents.
You are right about some pensioners being poor asset & cash but I was referring to all and also those over 45 rather than just pensioners. As a group we (older people) have become richer and political parties have skewed their spending toward older people because until last week young people were not politically active enough.
And yes my kids will inherit my assets so that will a third each of the £100k left after paying my social care costs, enough for a deposit on a house in Barrow I believe.
Do you have anymore stats that are a bit more detailed as happy to be proved wrong but not sure that this is compelling.
There were some buried away somewhere on the ONS archives but I failed to find them this time round. I suppose my main point is plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Guess what, when I was young all the property was owned by old people and most of my mates spent close to all their salaries on London rented properties (sharing maybe 4 up) and food. There was not much left for anything else. The whole concept of, say, taking up a PCP (if they had existed) to buy a brand new car would have been laughable and considered a fantasy.
So my personal circumstances by way of example, a couple of years after I started work in the early 1970s, I was seconded to my employer's branch in Newcastle for two years. I got back to London in May 1975. (Now, in what seems like unprecedented generosity these days, as a twenty-year-old in 1972 I was thinking of taking up my employer's cheapo mortgage deal. That would not be something that would be available today.) Unfortunately, they wouldn't let me have a housing loan, as they quaintly called it, while in Newcastle and I had to rent.
Now when I got back, it was getting on towards the fag end of a truly dreadful period of recession - "the oil crisis". For our younger readers, I was even issued with ex-WW2 fuel rationing coupons but they were thankfully never put into use but still had to queue round the block for a couple of gallons.
The recession was coupled with something approaching hyper-inflation. It was around 9% per annum in 1973, 16% the following year and peaked at a little over 25% in 1975. GDP went down about 4% and the miners turned down a 13% pay rise. But while I was away for the first year, London house prices went up by around 40%. This later corrected itself because of the secondary banking crisis and other factors but while the rate of increase fell, house prices kept on rising. So, when I got back despite the prospect of a cheap housing loan, it was insufficient to actually buy a house, I couldn't have afforded the monthly costs anyway because my salary had not kept pace with inflation and neither could I afford to rent. So I moved back in with my parents. Eventually buying a few years later and much further out (thus increasing my train season ticket) than I had intended.
Things were not the bed of roses that some are now claiming. Things were difficult. But as @LenGlover points out these days the Millennials or whatever they are called get all moody if they can't get exactly what they want delivered the following day. I don't have much sympathy.
If the US comes calling for us to send troops to some pointless war, we find the money.
Need to refurb parliament. We find the money.
Need to bail out banks. We find the money.
Want to renew a hugely expensive weapon we've never used and likely never will. We find the money.
The 'magic money tree' exists. It's just politicians often choose to use it for things that don't benefit you and I like a lot of things they could spend the money on would.
What would you do to Parliament then? Knock it down? The place is a mess. For years they've not done proper work on it for fear if upsetting voters. Now it's crumbling inside & out.
Personally I'd flog it & turn it into a museum/hotel, use the proceeds to build a modern government building, hi tech, etc.
Well that wasn't really the point of my post, but as you ask I'm a fan of historical architecture and with the Parliament building being so iconic I believe it is worth saving. I'd have preferred that the upkeep had been better done over the years to avoid such drastic repairs being needed now, but we are where we are and I'm okay with the money being spent. But I believe the government should be spending more on other things as well.
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have gained a majority, i.e. "won":
2015
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have failed to gain a majority, i.e. "lost":
2001 2005 2010 2017
The Tories cannot change their perception or improve their results until they acknowledge they lost the election. The longer they kid themselves that it's all ok, because they won the most seats and votes, the later the rebuilding starts and the longer it takes.
I hope this dawns on them very, very slowly.
Well, they did win the election because they're going to form a government.. otherwise.. who won the election?
And that kind of thinking is precisely my point! Until they realise they failed in their objective to secure a majority, they won't do the heavy lifting required to win again.
That's worth a big fat LOL.
So like the tories openly admitted to losing the 2010 election and then managed to pull themselves up from their bootstraps to win the 2015 election? Nope.
If they lost, should Corbyn resign for only doing slightly better than Gordon brown?
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
It CAN be readily denied. The ONS have done some interesting work on it. In short, employees aged 21 in 1995 and were 39 when the statistics were created in 2013, will have earned a total of 40% more in real terms that a 21-year-old who started work in 1975 when they hit 39. Similarly, those who started work in 1985 were 18% better off than their 1975 counterparts. People feel worse off because things have stagnated wage-wise since 2008. (So, my personal theory is that back in the day we saved more because there wasn't the pressure to have the latest gizmo here and now that there is today. And because today we spend more money on things the oldies just didn't have back in the day.)
The reality is that the current crop are (or should be) better placed than those in the earlier generation. In addition, unlike the 1970s and 1980s, real household disposable income per head grew almost continuously through the 1990s and 2000s, irrespective of recessions. In addition, to debunk your theory, the ONS state that pensioner (and single parent) households are more likely to be at the lower end of the income distribution. So, while it is undoubtedly true that some older people have houses which are worth a lot of money, it is also true to say that they are often asset rich but cash poor and presumably the young will get to inherit whatever the Government decides not to tax.
In addition, according to the ONS, in 2008/09 an estimated 18 per cent of individuals in the UK were from households with low income – below 60 per cent of contemporary median income. This is virtually unchanged since 1998/99 .
Thanks @cafcfan an interesting if brief read from the ONS archives. Does that not refer to income rather than wealth (we all earn more but everything costs more) and it sort of proves the point for those of us that were in on it at the beginning it has been pretty good (if you managed to buy a property) but it is getting increasingly difficult for younger people.
Also you say that older people are often asset rich rather than cash rich and although I should have been clearer than just saying "money" I meant to group cash and assets together. So older people are holding appreciating assets that are beyond the reach of most younger people. At the same time we are saddling those who try to chase us up the ladder with increasing debt e.g. student loans & rents.
You are right about some pensioners being poor asset & cash but I was referring to all and also those over 45 rather than just pensioners. As a group we (older people) have become richer and political parties have skewed their spending toward older people because until last week young people were not politically active enough.
And yes my kids will inherit my assets so that will a third each of the £100k left after paying my social care costs, enough for a deposit on a house in Barrow I believe.
Do you have anymore stats that are a bit more detailed as happy to be proved wrong but not sure that this is compelling.
There were some buried away somewhere on the ONS archives but I failed to find them this time round. I suppose my main point is plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Guess what, when I was young all the property was owned by old people and most of my mates spent close to all their salaries on London rented properties (sharing maybe 4 up) and food. There was not much left for anything else. The whole concept of, say, taking up a PCP (if they had existed) to buy a brand new car would have been laughable and considered a fantasy.
So my personal circumstances by way of example, a couple of years after I started work in the early 1970s, I was seconded to my employer's branch in Newcastle for two years. I got back to London in May 1975. (Now, in what seems like unprecedented generosity these days, as a twenty-year-old in 1972 I was thinking of taking up my employer's cheapo mortgage deal. That would not be something that would be available today.) Unfortunately, they wouldn't let me have a housing loan, as they quaintly called it, while in Newcastle and I had to rent.
Now when I got back, it was getting on towards the fag end of a truly dreadful period of recession - "the oil crisis". For our younger readers, I was even issued with ex-WW2 fuel rationing coupons but they were thankfully never put into use but still had to queue round the block for a couple of gallons.
The recession was coupled with something approaching hyper-inflation. It was around 9% per annum in 1973, 16% the following year and peaked at a little over 25% in 1975. GDP went down about 4% and the miners turned down a 13% pay rise. But while I was away for the first year, London house prices went up by around 40%. This later corrected itself because of the secondary banking crisis and other factors but while the rate of increase fell, house prices kept on rising. So, when I got back despite the prospect of a cheap housing loan, it was insufficient to actually buy a house, I couldn't have afforded the monthly costs anyway because my salary had not kept pace with inflation and neither could I afford to rent. So I moved back in with my parents. Eventually buying a few years later and much further out (thus increasing my train season ticket) than I had intended.
Things were not the bed of roses that some are now claiming. Things were difficult. But as @LenGlover points out these days the Millennials or whatever they are called get all moody if they can't get exactly what they want delivered the following day. I don't have much sympathy.
Interesting personal history @cafcfan you are a good bit older than me but I remember the 70's well including power cuts, trade unions and the oil crisis. The Millennials are like any generation anywhere good and bad and to many to write off with a general comment and @LenGlover is too polite to do that I am sure.
You do miss my point a bit because the seventies pre-dates the period where successive governments starting funneling cash towrd older people.
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
It CAN be readily denied. The ONS have done some interesting work on it. In short, employees aged 21 in 1995 and were 39 when the statistics were created in 2013, will have earned a total of 40% more in real terms that a 21-year-old who started work in 1975 when they hit 39. Similarly, those who started work in 1985 were 18% better off than their 1975 counterparts. People feel worse off because things have stagnated wage-wise since 2008. (So, my personal theory is that back in the day we saved more because there wasn't the pressure to have the latest gizmo here and now that there is today. And because today we spend more money on things the oldies just didn't have back in the day.)
The reality is that the current crop are (or should be) better placed than those in the earlier generation. In addition, unlike the 1970s and 1980s, real household disposable income per head grew almost continuously through the 1990s and 2000s, irrespective of recessions. In addition, to debunk your theory, the ONS state that pensioner (and single parent) households are more likely to be at the lower end of the income distribution. So, while it is undoubtedly true that some older people have houses which are worth a lot of money, it is also true to say that they are often asset rich but cash poor and presumably the young will get to inherit whatever the Government decides not to tax.
In addition, according to the ONS, in 2008/09 an estimated 18 per cent of individuals in the UK were from households with low income – below 60 per cent of contemporary median income. This is virtually unchanged since 1998/99 .
Thanks @cafcfan an interesting if brief read from the ONS archives. Does that not refer to income rather than wealth (we all earn more but everything costs more) and it sort of proves the point for those of us that were in on it at the beginning it has been pretty good (if you managed to buy a property) but it is getting increasingly difficult for younger people.
Also you say that older people are often asset rich rather than cash rich and although I should have been clearer than just saying "money" I meant to group cash and assets together. So older people are holding appreciating assets that are beyond the reach of most younger people. At the same time we are saddling those who try to chase us up the ladder with increasing debt e.g. student loans & rents.
You are right about some pensioners being poor asset & cash but I was referring to all and also those over 45 rather than just pensioners. As a group we (older people) have become richer and political parties have skewed their spending toward older people because until last week young people were not politically active enough.
And yes my kids will inherit my assets so that will a third each of the £100k left after paying my social care costs, enough for a deposit on a house in Barrow I believe.
Do you have anymore stats that are a bit more detailed as happy to be proved wrong but not sure that this is compelling.
There were some buried away somewhere on the ONS archives but I failed to find them this time round. I suppose my main point is plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Guess what, when I was young all the property was owned by old people and most of my mates spent close to all their salaries on London rented properties (sharing maybe 4 up) and food. There was not much left for anything else. The whole concept of, say, taking up a PCP (if they had existed) to buy a brand new car would have been laughable and considered a fantasy.
So my personal circumstances by way of example, a couple of years after I started work in the early 1970s, I was seconded to my employer's branch in Newcastle for two years. I got back to London in May 1975. (Now, in what seems like unprecedented generosity these days, as a twenty-year-old in 1972 I was thinking of taking up my employer's cheapo mortgage deal. That would not be something that would be available today.) Unfortunately, they wouldn't let me have a housing loan, as they quaintly called it, while in Newcastle and I had to rent.
Now when I got back, it was getting on towards the fag end of a truly dreadful period of recession - "the oil crisis". For our younger readers, I was even issued with ex-WW2 fuel rationing coupons but they were thankfully never put into use but still had to queue round the block for a couple of gallons.
The recession was coupled with something approaching hyper-inflation. It was around 9% per annum in 1973, 16% the following year and peaked at a little over 25% in 1975. GDP went down about 4% and the miners turned down a 13% pay rise. But while I was away for the first year, London house prices went up by around 40%. This later corrected itself because of the secondary banking crisis and other factors but while the rate of increase fell, house prices kept on rising. So, when I got back despite the prospect of a cheap housing loan, it was insufficient to actually buy a house, I couldn't have afforded the monthly costs anyway because my salary had not kept pace with inflation and neither could I afford to rent. So I moved back in with my parents. Eventually buying a few years later and much further out (thus increasing my train season ticket) than I had intended.
Things were not the bed of roses that some are now claiming. Things were difficult. But as @LenGlover points out these days the Millennials or whatever they are called get all moody if they can't get exactly what they want delivered the following day. I don't have much sympathy.
Interesting personal history @cafcfan you are a good bit older than me but I remember the 70's well including power cuts, trade unions and the oil crisis. The Millennials are like any generation anywhere good and bad and to many to write off with a general comment and @LenGlover is too polite to do that I am sure.
You do miss my point a bit because the seventies pre-dates the period where successive governments starting funneling cash towrd older people.
Another aspect to consider when looking at conditions for youngsters is changes in educational expectations and requirements.
If people enter the workplace at the age of 21 or 22 or so rather than 15 or 16 they will inevitably be older before being in a position to purchase a property even allowing for better wages because of superior qualifications.
Again I am not belittling the very real difficulties faced by youngsters trying to get on the property ladder but the 'so called prosperous elderly' have worked bloody hard to get themselves into that position in most cases only to have licenced muggers with red, blue and yellow rosettes wanting to steal their hard earned gains from them.
House prices were affordable for my parents generation. Harder for mine but doable, but just out of many youngsters reach nowdays. It just shows you how you can fill paras with facts to mislead. I know my mum and dad bought the house I grew up in London for 7K in the early 70s thanks to help from my great grandad and grand parents and it was worth 650k when my mum sold it to live in Hertfordshire. That house is now worth in excess of £3m! It simply rubbishes everything you say.
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
Isn't state control good in certain areas for the social good? We have state control of the police, armed forces, roads etc. You wouldn't want these run by Capita or similar. Privatisation of the railways has been an unmitigated disaster. Do you know who owns our railways? The state-controlled railways of other European countries, who are laughing all the way to the bank. Europeans enjoy far cheaper and better rail travel than Britons, even though our infrastructure ought to mean we ought to be the most efficient railway in Europe. Instead we are one of the worst.
Another aspect to consider when looking at conditions for youngsters is changes in educational expectations and requirements.
If people enter the workplace at the age of 21 or 22 or so rather than 15 or 16 they will inevitably be older before being in a position to purchase a property even allowing for better wages because of superior qualifications.
Again I am not belittling the very real difficulties faced by youngsters trying to get on the property ladder but the 'so called prosperous elderly' have worked bloody hard to get themselves into that position in most cases only to have licenced muggers with red, blue and yellow rosettes wanting to steal their hard earned gains from them.
There's an awful lot of different dynamics in house buying compared to 30-40 years ago or even 20 years ago, MIRAS, interest rate levels, anyone who took a mortgage out in the 70's will know there was one type (outside of Repayment & Endowment) and that was variable rate, none of this fixed, discount offset etc. Salary multipliers although not official were predominantly 2.5x salary as an absolute maximum. It was predominantly building societies who gave mortgages (and like a cartel set the interest rates) and you'd need to save with them for a number of years (5?) before they would entertain lending you anything.
London in particular, in places, can also see extreme movements. Places that 30 years ago that were 'cheap' and unpopular are now the opposite, places like Bethnal Green, Brockley etc have changed dynamic dramatically. Who'd have thought the three bed council flat in Bethnal Green on a right to buy only 20 years ago at less than £50k would today command three quarters of a million. Or in the 60's the three storey victorian in Briockley that was the same price as a 3 bed semi in Eltham would now be 4x the value of the Royal Eltham pad
The london average since 1973 is an increase of 3600% or to put it in numbers £7k becomes roughly £260k, there will be variances to that, it's just 'average' for London (Nationwide House Price Calculator).
I believe the hardest part these days compared to the past is the deposit, saving for that is the hardest part for the younger generation but not as wide as some may believe (IMHO). Our dearly beloved conservatives have tried to address that with the Lifetime ISA but it's not enough even if it is 25% free money.
Houses may be 6 times+ the cost of 20 years ago, but interest rates were double digit then. A 70k mortgage in the early 90's at 10% is the same annual interest charge today as on a £450k mortgage and thats pound for pound, no allowance for inflation over that time. If you make allowance for inflation at 2.7% per annum, £450k in 1995 is the same today as £800k.
So the balances change, the high level figures also, but there isn't the massive gulf due to, predominantly, the availability of borrowing and interest rates, although it is indeed harder to save the deposit for numerous reasons.
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
How many economists do you know? I would suggest you research Mark Blyth, Mick Burke and Ha Joon-Chang - there are many,many more. They disagree with austerity and accept the need for taxation. But of course a lot of our taxes subsidise big Corporations.
Here is an American economist, Richard Wolff, who is saying Corbyn isn't really that left. This is a very interesting interview by the way.
My comment about being polite was genuine @LenGlover as reading it again it could come across as slightly facetious. Agree with most of what you say (and would add a purple rosette) but would add that don't the current crop of young people deserve the same opportunity to work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labour?
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
How many economists do you know? I would suggest you research Mark Blyth, Mick Burke and Ha Joon-Chang - there are many,many more. They disagree with austerity and accept the need for taxation. But of course a lot of our taxes subsidise big Corporations.
Here is an American economist, Richard Wolff, who is saying Corbyn isn't really that left. This is a very interesting interview by the way.
That's the thing though. Corbyn, or at least the Labour Party under the 2017 Manifesto, isn't that left-wing. Most European countries would consider it centrist or centre-left at worst, whereas our Tory Party, with their policy of deregulating big business, defunding public services and selling as much publicly owned stuff as possible, as well as increasingly restrictive civil liberties and social laws, are considered 'bat-shit loony hard right'. Especially given the Tories left what is considered the centre-right group in the EU Parliament and joined with a group that included misogynists, holocaust deniers and racists amongst their illustrious ranks.
Not a single economist will seriously back the Tories anymore, whereas some of the top names in the field endorse Labour heartily.
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
I will give you higher taxation, but that is in common the manifesto's of the Lib Dems and the Tories (don't forget the dementia tax). The rest is merely your opinion and political beliefs and your last point agrees with me.
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
How many economists do you know? I would suggest you research Mark Blyth, Mick Burke and Ha Joon-Chang - there are many,many more. They disagree with austerity and accept the need for taxation. But of course a lot of our taxes subsidise big Corporations.
Here is an American economist, Richard Wolff, who is saying Corbyn isn't really that left. This is a very interesting interview by the way.
That's the thing though. Corbyn, or at least the Labour Party under the 2017 Manifesto, isn't that left-wing. Most European countries would consider it centrist or centre-left at worst, whereas our Tory Party, with their policy of deregulating big business, defunding public services and selling as much publicly owned stuff as possible, as well as increasingly restrictive civil liberties and social laws, are considered 'bat-shit loony hard right'. Especially given the Tories left what is considered the centre-right group in the EU Parliament and joined with a group that included misogynists, holocaust deniers and racists amongst their illustrious ranks.
Not a single economist will seriously back the Tories anymore, whereas some of the top names in the field endorse Labour heartily.
I think sometimes when I go on about the 1% elite, some people may actually think I am off my rocker. People have to wake up to it - please research it and find out as much as you can and then decide for yourselves. But please research it with an open mind.
Sometimes I like to see how things boil down to the impact on people. When I heard that a new dad was charged 60$ to hold his new born baby at the hospital in America I frankly couldn't believe it. It looks like you can have nearly anything you want in America at a price. it chimed with what I heard about solicitors over here charging £20 to read an email. Yes, anything that a person does in association with their work can be argued to come at a cost, but if that is the case you might see the end of teachers taking kids on trips or doing the school cultural event, medical staff refusing to rush in to attend emergencies, or the fantastic off duty police officers intervening to save lives as they have done recently. I am using some extreme examples here, but if the rightwing world view is so driven by the concept of cost over value where does that leave us? It might leave us with questions about ownership. Water for example, or roads. Even more questions about monopolies and cartels too.
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
How many economists do you know? I would suggest you research Mark Blyth, Mick Burke and Ha Joon-Chang - there are many,many more. They disagree with austerity and accept the need for taxation. But of course a lot of our taxes subsidise big Corporations.
Here is an American economist, Richard Wolff, who is saying Corbyn isn't really that left. This is a very interesting interview by the way.
That's the thing though. Corbyn, or at least the Labour Party under the 2017 Manifesto, isn't that left-wing. Most European countries would consider it centrist or centre-left at worst, whereas our Tory Party, with their policy of deregulating big business, defunding public services and selling as much publicly owned stuff as possible, as well as increasingly restrictive civil liberties and social laws, are considered 'bat-shit loony hard right'. Especially given the Tories left what is considered the centre-right group in the EU Parliament and joined with a group that included misogynists, holocaust deniers and racists amongst their illustrious ranks.
Not a single economist will seriously back the Tories anymore, whereas some of the top names in the field endorse Labour heartily.
I think sometimes when I go on about the 1% elite, some people may actually think I am off my rocker. People have to wake up to it - please research it and find out as much as you can and then decide for yourselves. But please research it with an open mind.
I haven't followed this thread word-for-word so apologies if I have missed the point, but wouldn't say the whole of Charlton's first team squad be in the 1% elite (ie. in the top 1% of incomes)?
Are they really 'elite' or just talented young men temporarily making hay whilst the sun shines (ie. before their career ends)?
Joseph Stiglitz is very renowned in economics. He is easily one of the top 5 in the field and unlike Krugman or Piketty he doesn't have any political stigma. So when he has stated that we need a new economic model and to move away from the one the Tories are desperately clinging to like a piece of driftwood, they would do well to take heed.
There is now no justification for the continuation of the Tory economic program, and no respectable economist would dare put their name to the endorsement of austerity. We need radical spending, tax, capital and redistribution reforms desperately. We are one of the most unequal societies comparably speaking to other similar nations and the economic consensus is that inequality stifles growth.
Stiglitz is always interesting. I particularly support his views that Britain is easily capable of thriving outside the European Union, that the euro zone has very deep flaws, and that the response of eurozone officials to the debt crisis that erupted in Greece in 2010 has effectively doomed large parts of the monetary bloc to perennial depression.
@Fiiish I am so disappointed, I thought you might bite on this one.
Sometimes I like to see how things boil down to the impact on people. When I heard that a new dad was charged 60$ to hold his new born baby at the hospital in America I frankly couldn't believe it. It looks like you can have nearly anything you want in America at a price. it chimed with what I heard about solicitors over here charging £20 to read an email. Yes, anything that a person does in association with their work can be argued to come at a cost, but if that is the case you might see the end of teachers taking kids on trips or doing the school cultural event, medical staff refusing to rush in to attend emergencies, or the fantastic off duty police officers intervening to save lives as they have done recently. I am using some extreme examples here, but if the rightwing world view is so driven by the concept of cost over value where does that leave us? It might leave us with questions about ownership. Water for example, or roads. Even more questions about monopolies and cartels too.
And when everything has a cost certain people benefit from that cost.
House prices were affordable for my parents generation. Harder for mine but doable, but just out of many youngsters reach nowdays. It just shows you how you can fill paras with facts to mislead. I know my mum and dad bought the house I grew up in London for 7K in the early 70s thanks to help from my great grandad and grand parents and it was worth 650k when my mum sold it to live in Hertfordshire. That house is now worth in excess of £3m! It simply rubbishes everything you say.
Affordable? My parents from the same era lived in a council flat all their lives and had fuck all.
Just because that was your circumstance doesn't mean everyone was so lucky.
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
Isn't state control good in certain areas for the social good? We have state control of the police, armed forces, roads etc. You wouldn't want these run by Capita or similar. Privatisation of the railways has been an unmitigated disaster. Do you know who owns our railways? The state-controlled railways of other European countries, who are laughing all the way to the bank. Europeans enjoy far cheaper and better rail travel than Britons, even though our infrastructure ought to mean we ought to be the most efficient railway in Europe. Instead we are one of the worst.
My point wasn't whether any of this was good or bad. If you read back to the start of this thread it was about the level of debate and the failure of the Tories to challenge the Labour policies. However you are so intent on making political points you probably won't here that.
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
How many economists do you know? I would suggest you research Mark Blyth, Mick Burke and Ha Joon-Chang - there are many,many more. They disagree with austerity and accept the need for taxation. But of course a lot of our taxes subsidise big Corporations.
Here is an American economist, Richard Wolff, who is saying Corbyn isn't really that left. This is a very interesting interview by the way.
That's the thing though. Corbyn, or at least the Labour Party under the 2017 Manifesto, isn't that left-wing. Most European countries would consider it centrist or centre-left at worst, whereas our Tory Party, with their policy of deregulating big business, defunding public services and selling as much publicly owned stuff as possible, as well as increasingly restrictive civil liberties and social laws, are considered 'bat-shit loony hard right'. Especially given the Tories left what is considered the centre-right group in the EU Parliament and joined with a group that included misogynists, holocaust deniers and racists amongst their illustrious ranks.
Not a single economist will seriously back the Tories anymore, whereas some of the top names in the field endorse Labour heartily.
I think sometimes when I go on about the 1% elite, some people may actually think I am off my rocker. People have to wake up to it - please research it and find out as much as you can and then decide for yourselves. But please research it with an open mind.
I haven't followed this thread word-for-word so apologies if I have missed the point, but wouldn't say the whole of Charlton's first team squad be in the 1% elite (ie. in the top 1% of incomes)?
Are they really 'elite' or just talented young men temporarily making hay whilst the sun shines (ie. before their career ends)?
As in owning 48% of the world's wealth - I don't think so - do you?
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
How many economists do you know? I would suggest you research Mark Blyth, Mick Burke and Ha Joon-Chang - there are many,many more. They disagree with austerity and accept the need for taxation. But of course a lot of our taxes subsidise big Corporations.
Here is an American economist, Richard Wolff, who is saying Corbyn isn't really that left. This is a very interesting interview by the way.
Where have I said I disagree with taxation. There are certainly many economists who disagree with austerity. However again you want to make political points rather than actually read what I said.
Comments
Also you say that older people are often asset rich rather than cash rich and although I should have been clearer than just saying "money" I meant to group cash and assets together. So older people are holding appreciating assets that are beyond the reach of most younger people. At the same time we are saddling those who try to chase us up the ladder with increasing debt e.g. student loans & rents.
You are right about some pensioners being poor asset & cash but I was referring to all and also those over 45 rather than just pensioners. As a group we (older people) have become richer and political parties have skewed their spending toward older people because until last week young people were not politically active enough.
And yes my kids will inherit my assets so that will a third each of the £100k left after paying my social care costs, enough for a deposit on a house in Barrow I believe.
Do you have anymore stats that are a bit more detailed as happy to be proved wrong but not sure that this is compelling.
Too many ways to list...
Guess what, when I was young all the property was owned by old people and most of my mates spent close to all their salaries on London rented properties (sharing maybe 4 up) and food. There was not much left for anything else. The whole concept of, say, taking up a PCP (if they had existed) to buy a brand new car would have been laughable and considered a fantasy.
So my personal circumstances by way of example, a couple of years after I started work in the early 1970s, I was seconded to my employer's branch in Newcastle for two years. I got back to London in May 1975. (Now, in what seems like unprecedented generosity these days, as a twenty-year-old in 1972 I was thinking of taking up my employer's cheapo mortgage deal. That would not be something that would be available today.) Unfortunately, they wouldn't let me have a housing loan, as they quaintly called it, while in Newcastle and I had to rent.
Now when I got back, it was getting on towards the fag end of a truly dreadful period of recession - "the oil crisis". For our younger readers, I was even issued with ex-WW2 fuel rationing coupons but they were thankfully never put into use but still had to queue round the block for a couple of gallons.
The recession was coupled with something approaching hyper-inflation. It was around 9% per annum in 1973, 16% the following year and peaked at a little over 25% in 1975. GDP went down about 4% and the miners turned down a 13% pay rise. But while I was away for the first year, London house prices went up by around 40%. This later corrected itself because of the secondary banking crisis and other factors but while the rate of increase fell, house prices kept on rising. So, when I got back despite the prospect of a cheap housing loan, it was insufficient to actually buy a house, I couldn't have afforded the monthly costs anyway because my salary had not kept pace with inflation and neither could I afford to rent. So I moved back in with my parents. Eventually buying a few years later and much further out (thus increasing my train season ticket) than I had intended.
Things were not the bed of roses that some are now claiming. Things were difficult. But as @LenGlover points out these days the Millennials or whatever they are called get all moody if they can't get exactly what they want delivered the following day. I don't have much sympathy.
So like the tories openly admitted to losing the 2010 election and then managed to pull themselves up from their bootstraps to win the 2015 election? Nope.
If they lost, should Corbyn resign for only doing slightly better than Gordon brown?
You do miss my point a bit because the seventies pre-dates the period where successive governments starting funneling cash towrd older people.
If people enter the workplace at the age of 21 or 22 or so rather than 15 or 16 they will inevitably be older before being in a position to purchase a property even allowing for better wages because of superior qualifications.
Again I am not belittling the very real difficulties faced by youngsters trying to get on the property ladder but the 'so called prosperous elderly' have worked bloody hard to get themselves into that position in most cases only to have licenced muggers with red, blue and yellow rosettes wanting to steal their hard earned gains from them.
More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare
Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence)
CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point
Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
London in particular, in places, can also see extreme movements. Places that 30 years ago that were 'cheap' and unpopular are now the opposite, places like Bethnal Green, Brockley etc have changed dynamic dramatically. Who'd have thought the three bed council flat in Bethnal Green on a right to buy only 20 years ago at less than £50k would today command three quarters of a million. Or in the 60's the three storey victorian in Briockley that was the same price as a 3 bed semi in Eltham would now be 4x the value of the Royal Eltham pad
The london average since 1973 is an increase of 3600% or to put it in numbers £7k becomes roughly £260k, there will be variances to that, it's just 'average' for London (Nationwide House Price Calculator).
I believe the hardest part these days compared to the past is the deposit, saving for that is the hardest part for the younger generation but not as wide as some may believe (IMHO). Our dearly beloved conservatives have tried to address that with the Lifetime ISA but it's not enough even if it is 25% free money.
Houses may be 6 times+ the cost of 20 years ago, but interest rates were double digit then. A 70k mortgage in the early 90's at 10% is the same annual interest charge today as on a £450k mortgage and thats pound for pound, no allowance for inflation over that time. If you make allowance for inflation at 2.7% per annum, £450k in 1995 is the same today as £800k.
So the balances change, the high level figures also, but there isn't the massive gulf due to, predominantly, the availability of borrowing and interest rates, although it is indeed harder to save the deposit for numerous reasons.
Here is an American economist, Richard Wolff, who is saying Corbyn isn't really that left. This is a very interesting interview by the way.
My comment about being polite was genuine @LenGlover as reading it again it could come across as slightly facetious. Agree with most of what you say (and would add a purple rosette) but would add that don't the current crop of young people deserve the same opportunity to work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labour?
Not a single economist will seriously back the Tories anymore, whereas some of the top names in the field endorse Labour heartily.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/livid-conservative-epic-theresa-may-rant-watch/
When I heard that a new dad was charged 60$ to hold his new born baby at the hospital in America I frankly couldn't believe it.
It looks like you can have nearly anything you want in America at a price. it chimed with what I heard about solicitors over here charging £20 to read an email.
Yes, anything that a person does in association with their work can be argued to come at a cost, but if that is the case you might see the end of teachers taking kids on trips or doing the school cultural event, medical staff refusing to rush in to attend emergencies, or the fantastic off duty police officers intervening to save lives as they have done recently. I am using some extreme examples here, but if the rightwing world view is so driven by the concept of cost over value where does that leave us?
It might leave us with questions about ownership. Water for example, or roads.
Even more questions about monopolies and cartels too.
Are they really 'elite' or just talented young men temporarily making hay whilst the sun shines (ie. before their career ends)?
Will have to improve my 'fishing'
Just because that was your circumstance doesn't mean everyone was so lucky.