26-Nov 2022 : LAB: 50% / CON: 27% / LDEM: 9% / GRN: 4%

[mercian]

Mar 29, 2023 23:00:18 GMT @sotonsaint said:

Mar 29, 2023 22:55:42 GMT mercian said:

a) I'm not a Tory as I've said before, or at least I have voted for them sometimes in the past but not very often if at all for about 20 years.
b) I don't know what my daughter votes.
c) A foreign holiday wouldn't be cheaper than staying in your own caravan, though we have all taken them occasionally.
d) As a rule of thumb, rent is about the same as a mortgage, so get a mortgage. there's a free gift of a house at the end of it whereas you pay rent until you die.

No, since Liz Truss played at being PM a mortgage on the property I rent would now be 10% more than my rent is (assuming a 10% deposit).

How much did the caravan cost?

Well that's roughly the same.  No idea how much the caravan cost.

[lens]

Mar 29, 2023 18:14:56 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Mar 17, 2023 15:13:24 GMT lens said:

Possibly - or how much is it down to the sheer technical side? I do wonder about the additional complexity involved in the Virgin way of doing a launch - taking a rocket to altitude via an aircraft. Now that Musk and SpaceX have cracked the ability to reuse boosters, it's a hard act for others to follow. I foresee the SpaceX approach becoming increasingly the norm, and Virgin's approach going down in future as a rather quaint interlude.

In principle, the Virgin approach does have some advantages. While SpaceX might reuse the lower stage a dozen times or so, it still might need quite a bit of work refitting before reuse, whereas Virgin can reuse a Jumbo jet many times with an easier turnaround, offering lower costs and a potentially greater launch cadence.

In theory launch prices might therefore be cheaper, but it seems Virgin spent a lot of money in development and have more to recoup.

There are other advantages however. Using a plane means you can launch in poorer weather as you can fly to where it’s calmer before releasing the rocket.

I think you referred to it yourself, but my understanding is that the Virgin jumbo is very limited not just to orbital payload, but the height it can take the rocket to and horizontal velocity at time of release - all of which it requires the (non-reusable) rocket itself to compensate for. That's on top of the sheer payload capability, relative to a SpaceX falcon. I don't believe the turn around and refit on a Falcon is that much - relative to what may be expected?

I stand to be corrected, but I'm sceptical about any weather issue advantage. It can partly be overcome with a launch site in an area with a good number of days of good weather in a typical year, and when the weather is too bad for a rocket launch, it may be unsuitable for the Virgin Jumbo anyway? I'm also uncertain about whether just "flying to where the weathers good" on the day is feasible, on the basis of permissions alone? 

Mar 29, 2023 18:14:56 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Of course, getting Starship to work - a fully reusable system - may change the game again.

Yes indeed, I was referring to "the SpaceX approach" - and reusing boosters - rather than just the Falcon 9. SpaceX are obviously top of the tree, but others seem to think it's fundamentally the way to go, even for smaller payloads - eg www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/how-to-bring-a-rocket-back-from-space/ (Though the way SpaceX save them from any salt water dunking can't be but a good thing! 😁 )

[oldnat]

I think this is new

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2023 23:15:44 GMT mercian said:

Mar 29, 2023 23:13:10 GMT @isa said:

You may well be the exception that proves the rule. I'm not sure that cider and ciggies is generally accepted as the key to a long and healthy life.

Top-quality genes. 🤣

That'll be it.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 29, 2023 23:17:38 GMT lens said:

Mar 29, 2023 18:14:56 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

In principle, the Virgin approach does have some advantages. While SpaceX might reuse the lower stage a dozen times or so, it still might need quite a bit of work refitting before reuse, whereas Virgin can reuse a Jumbo jet many times with an easier turnaround, offering lower costs and a potentially greater launch cadence.

In theory launch prices might therefore be cheaper, but it seems Virgin spent a lot of money in development and have more to recoup.

There are other advantages however. Using a plane means you can launch in poorer weather as you can fly to where it’s calmer before releasing the rocket.

I think you referred to it yourself, but my understanding is that the Virgin jumbo is very limited not just to orbital payload, but the height it can take the rocket to and horizontal velocity at time of release - all of which it requires the (non-reusable) rocket itself to compensate for. That's on top of the sheer payload capability, relative to a SpaceX falcon. I don't believe the turn around and refit on a Falcon is that much - relative to what may be expected?

I stand to be corrected, but I'm sceptical about any weather issue advantage. It can partly be overcome with a launch site in an area with a good number of days of good weather in a typical year, and when the weather is too bad for a rocket launch, it may be unsuitable for the Virgin Jumbo anyway? I'm also uncertain about whether just "flying to where the weathers good" on the day is feasible, on the basis of permissions alone? 

Mar 29, 2023 18:14:56 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Of course, getting Starship to work - a fully reusable system - may change the game again.

Yes indeed, I was referring to "the SpaceX approach" - and reusing boosters - rather than just the Falcon 9. SpaceX are obviously top of the tree, but others seem to think it's fundamentally the way to go, even for smaller payloads - eg www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/how-to-bring-a-rocket-back-from-space/ (Though the way SpaceX save them from any salt water dunking can't be but a good thing! 😁 )

I explained in my post how it’s not very economic to use Falcons regularly for the smallest payloads, and how they have a reduced capacity for polar orbits, with only one facility that’s really suitable for that, whereas we are aiming at having several.

There’s a big difference in time and costs between a Falcon booster that takes 9 days to turn around, and where you have to replace things like heat shields every ten flights or so... and a jumbo jet that is designed to be turned around much more quickly and where you don’t have to replace heat shields and other such components every few flights.

Even for parts not being replaced on a Falcon you still have to do things like x ray the engine bells etc.

When it comes to starship, as I indicated that’s obviously different being fully reusable,* but you might still find it overkill for smallest payloads, and you still might have the polar orbit limitations unless launching starship from somewhere like here say, and we may develop a reusable upper stage at some point. 

I’m not sure about the weather permissions thing tbh.

* interestingly, although the Raptor used by Starship is a more complex engine than the Falcon’s engines, it’s easier to clean which will also help.

[ptarmigan]

At the risk of restarting the Jeremy Corbyn discourse, I’m baffled by this idea that Labour simply had to bar him for their electoral prospects. Yes, of course the Tories would have tried to resurrect him as a bogeyman come the next election, but I can’t imagine the prospect of Corbyn on the backbenches would have frightened any horses. It would, for the most part, have been seen for the desperate ploy that it was. No one would even be talking about Corbyn right now if Labour hadn’t expended so much energy trying to eject him. The rationale given in Starmer’s motion was also risible and would logically mean that Shadow Cabinet member Ed Milliband should also be swiftly expunged.

But aside from Starmer’s duplicity, my main issue with Labour at the moment is that I don’t understand what their pitch is. They just don’t seem to be offering anything at all to anyone of a LOC disposition, and appear to be endlessly pitching to ROC voters, without offering anything very concrete in the way of solutions to the massive issues this country faces. Not that it really matters who I vote for (if Lab win my seat they’ll win a healthy majority) but in terms of voting intention I seem to vacillate almost daily. Whenever Sunak opens his mouth you can put me in the Labour column, when Starmer does the same you can place me in the column marked “hmm, what are the Greens up to these days?” I’m being a bit facetious but it feels as though the electoral choice is going to be between a precipitous decline and a managed decline for Britain. Sure, the latter’s a less terrifying prospect, but it’s not exactly attractive, is it?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 30, 2023 0:14:42 GMT ptarmigan said:

At the risk of restarting the Jeremy Corbyn discourse, I’m baffled by this idea that Labour simply had to bar him for their electoral prospects. Yes, of course the Tories would have tried to resurrect him as a bogeyman come the next election, but I can’t imagine the prospect of Corbyn on the backbenches would have frightened any horses. It would, for the most part, have been seen for the desperate ploy that it was. No one would even be talking about Corbyn right now if Labour hadn’t expended so much energy trying to eject him. The rationale given in Starmer’s motion was also risible and would logically mean that Shadow Cabinet member Ed Milliband should also be swiftly expunged.

But aside from Starmer’s duplicity, my main issue with Labour at the moment is that I don’t understand what their pitch is. They just don’t seem to be offering anything at all to anyone of a LOC disposition, and appear to be endlessly pitching to ROC voters, without offering anything very concrete in the way of solutions to the massive issues this country faces. Not that it really matters who I vote for (if Lab win my seat they’ll win a healthy majority) but in terms of voting intention I seem to vacillate almost daily. Whenever Sunak opens his mouth you can put me in the Labour column, when Starmer does the same you can place me in the column marked “hmm, what are the Greens up to these days?” I’m being a bit facetious but it feels as though the electoral choice is going to be between a precipitous decline and a managed decline for Britain. Sure, the latter’s a less terrifying prospect, but it’s not exactly attractive, is it?

Well there’s the thing. Some on the right of the party may not want a lot of change, one reason for not talking about policy much, and may be quite ok with just a minimal reduction of inequality. Enough to differentiate from Tories, but not enough to seriously improve prospects for the working class to get much closer to the middle class.

The New Labour years represented something of a peak of middle class hegemony, and while that has been eroded somewhat in part by Brexit - as being in the EU tended to expose the working class to more competition while protecting middle class jobs - they may not want it eroded further by left wing policies. Or even possibly, by some centrist policies.

Thus, those most concerned about retaining middle class power might want more spent on the public sector as it holds a lot of middle class jobs, that sort of thing. But preferably not do much renationalisation of utilities or investment in industry as it tends to give the working class and their unions more power. Investing in schools and creating middle class jobs and giving teaching unions more power is ok though.

Maybe more on benefits, to differentiate from Tories, more middle class jobs in a successor to Sure Start even, but nothing all that transforming like full employment or rebalancing house prices please. 

There are noises about raising CGT... how far does Starmer feel he can go in rebalancing middle class power without upsetting the right of the party?

[joeboy]

Mar 29, 2023 21:55:23 GMT @sotonsaint said:

Mar 29, 2023 21:39:12 GMT mercian said:

I paid mine off by my early 40s (as has my daughter), but I was allowing for people not being astute as me. Amazed that it's as late as 59. I was semi-retired by then.  

What was it barbara said about Tories lacking empathy...?

My Dad bought his and my mother's still-current house in the mid 70s. It's a large-ish bungalow on a large piece of land and currently worth the best part of a £1m. My dad worked in a middle ranking civil service job. My mum never worked and brought up a number of kids.

Fast forward to today. I'm the same age my dad was when I was born, have a similarly-ranked job, no wife, no kids, yet still can't quite afford the mortgage on a £150k one-bed flat in Southampton, which is one of the best-value cities in the south. Why's that then?

If I entered my workplace pension 10% of my income would disappear, making saving/getting a mortgage even more unaffordable.

Before you answer please bear in mind student loan repayments (you may have to Google what those are) and the horrendous cost-of-living...

(EDIT: I've posted most of this exact story before but thought it worth repeating since this forum is basically boomer central and as my mother said the other day, "well WE didn't get anything in the budget this year" as she enjoys her free state pension, my dad's ridiculous final salary one and their free bus passes. Oh, and an incredible amount of shares in my dad's ex-workplace which they bagged when it was sold off on the cheap!)

[steve]

The British public have more trust for the European union than they do for the UK parliament and government.
Since national shoot yourself in the foot day in 2016 faith in the UK institutions has fallen precipitously while confidence in the European union has grown.
The same survey from World values also showed that only 24% of people said they were “happy” that the UK voted to quit the EU while 49% said they were disappointed.

Our shambolic government and the born again brexitanians in the Labour leadership are yet again behind the curve of public opinion which calls at the very least for a far more productive relationship with Europe.

Of course there will always be Brexit cultists who prefer their own fantasies to the truth and assorted useful idiots who think eventually that turd can be polished.
But the majority of the electorate have seen the failed nationalist exceptionalist frolic for the bull shit it so obviously is and want it consigned to the bin.
Sadly the damage the brexitanian luddites have done is far harder to repair than it was to break, our stolen rights and the life chances of our children will remain diminished for some time to come.



www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/30/britons-more-confidence-in-eu-than-westminster-poll-brexit

[neilj]

mercian
"agree with graham. You're talking about two different things. By 1975, we were already in the EEC and it would have been another upheaval to bring us out again, so most people thought "let's just get on with it and stick with the status quo". If only modern Remainiacs were that mature."

Hang on since 1973 we had 40 years of eurosceotics banging on about the,EEC/EU, using every opportunity to slag them off and leave
We're you critical of the likes of Farage, Cash, Hannan etc during this period.
Did you wish that they should gave been mature enough and "just get on with it and stick with the status quo"?

[moby]

Mar 29, 2023 23:12:15 GMT ptarmigan said:

Mar 29, 2023 21:55:23 GMT @sotonsaint said:

What was it barbara said about Tories lacking empathy...?

My Dad bought his and my mother's still-current house in the mid 70s. It's a large-ish bungalow on a large piece of land and currently worth the best part of a £1m. My dad worked in a middle ranking civil service job. My mum never worked and brought up a number of kids.

Fast forward to today. I'm the same age my dad was when I was born, have a similarly-ranked job, no wife, no kids, yet still can't quite afford the mortgage on a £150k one-bed flat in Southampton, which is one of the best-value cities in the south. Why's that then?

If I entered my workplace pension 10% of my income would disappear, making saving/getting a mortgage even more unaffordable.

Before you answer please bear in mind student loan repayments (you may have to Google what those are) and the horrendous cost-of-living...

(EDIT: I've posted most of this exact story before but thought it worth repeating since this forum is basically boomer central and as my mother said the other day, "well WE didn't get anything in the budget this year" as she enjoys her free state pension, my dad's ridiculous final salary one and their free bus passes. Oh, and an incredible amount of shares in my dad's ex-workplace which they bagged when it was sold off on the cheap!)

It's about time housing was prioritised as a political issue.

It's always been a political issue, the problem is most of us believe in or passively accept the concept of inherited wealth. Left to their own devices people, (even socialists) will always put their own families first and that simply means profit from the ownership of property tends to transfer down the generations through the bank of mum and dad. Then as soon as you get a mortgage you have a stake in the system yourself, you want to keep your job because that's how you repay the debt, you are less likely to strike or rock the boat for management at work, you'll just be grateful you have a job; you'll want to keep the banking system stable; you'll want a good school for your kids and of course you'll want your own family to eventually inherit from your graft. The only way you can really break this cycle is by taxing inherited wealth far more efficiently. In the 'property owning democracy' we have had for generations it would be political suicide to do this. 

[alec]

mercian - "I paid mine off by my early 40s (as has my daughter), but I was allowing for people not being astute as me. Amazed that it's as late as 59. I was semi-retired by then."

You can be amazingly stupid at times.

Spend a moment to think of those who choose to work in the low paid jobs that you and your society depend on for your survival; the hospital porters, the shop staff, the delivery drivers, the teaching assistants.

I spent much of my working life in the charity sector, and my mortgage is scheduled to run till I'm 71, with a small amount of that on interest only, but given my recent years running a business I expect to have officially retired in the next couple of years, although I'll keep working because I like what I do, but doing a bit more pro bono community work than I have been able to afford over the last fifteen years.

There's a whole world of difference out there you know. You should go and have a look one day.

[alec]

I had to post this - keithswank.com/index.html

He's a failed Republican congressional candidate for the Washington 10th District, losing heavily to Democrat Mary Strickland. He's an ex army veteran serving from 1986 -94. He is currently campaigning to arm teachers to protect children.

And yes, his name really is Keith R. Swank. Roll that around your tongue, slowly.

Or maybe not.....

[jimjam]

Alec,

When Mortgage rates are 2% or so, as they were for 13 years from 2009, (lower than 1% for some people on older trackers) and investment returns averaged over 5% paying off ones mortgage is the opposite of astute as I see it.

[alec]

jimjam - very much so. We extended twice, using a flexible mortgage, and it's done us OK.

[barbara]

Mar 29, 2023 22:48:06 GMT mercian said:

@sotonsaint
Ok. I'm simplifying this a bit, but she started buying a terraced house 20 years ago at the age of 19 for £30K. It was quite a struggle. She sold it maybe 6? years ago for £65K. The semi they now live in cost £130k. It's quite a nice area with woods behind the house and a river over the road. I've just searched Zoopla and there are many 3-bed semis in the area for less than £200k. One is even £39k but I imagine it would need a bit of work and/or serious armament by the occupier 🤣

Perhaps you just live in the wrong place?

@sotonsaint -you need to get on your bike!

[Danny]

Mar 29, 2023 20:57:35 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

Having just revisited my old hometown in outer north west London for a school reunion, I can understand why people in the south are against further development. In the 30 years since we moved north, houses have been squeezed in at every slight opportunity, traffic and parking is horrendous. 

That is because of the longstanding policy of requiring development to only happen on brown field sites. Thereby intensifying existing urban areas. There is plenty of land even in the south east for new towns, if you recall one of the conservative housing ministers got into trouble for stating publicly there was plenty of space even in the SE to build new homes, and he is correct. The estate where I live was built in the 1960s. If it was rebuilt today it would have something like double the housing density, thats easy to see comparing it to recent builds. There's plenty of empty mediocre land around hastings, towns are like raisins in pudding, this is simply a consequence of policy. 

Also not forgetting that back in 1960 the reason this estate was built was because of deliberate government policy to shrink the size of London and distribute the population much more widely. This has utterly reversed.

I looked for some stats on housing and there are some comparing 1980 to 2012 here www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/housingandhomeownershipintheuk/2015-01-22

In 1980 there were approx 12 million owner occupiers which rose to 18 million in 2012. Meanwhile, local authority homes fell from 7 million to 2 million although this was compensated by housing association tenants rising from about 0.5 million to 2.75 million (net loss of 2.75 million public sector homes). Private rentals rose from 2.5 to 5 million. So the total rental sector is much the same size, but now mostly privately owned. These people will be paying much more as a proportion of income than in 1980 so I doubt they wil be happy with the policy overall.

Total homes has changed from 22 million to 27.75, so about 25% more.  That clearly has not kept up with demand, what with many more people living separately and having second homes and the rise overall in population.

Another chart shows the total number of owner occupied homes peaked about 2005. A separate government web page with housing stats from 2001 to 2021 shows the percentage of homes owner occupied has been falling since 2001. This page sheds some interesting light on that total, because it shows home ownership by age group, and in 1980 30% of 16-24 age group were home owners. 2012 it is 10%. For 75+ in 1980 its was 45% and 2012 its 75% The age of 45 looks on these numbers as approximately the age at which these trends cross over and the percentage home owners is much the same as in 1980, at 65%.  

These figures are out of date by ten years Projecting the trends, then approximate percentage of 16-24 now home owners would be 0%, and 75+ 80%. Dont know if thats what has happened, but the trend is clear over time. The crossover age may well have risen to the magic 50 mentioned recently by labour.

aside from the rising price of property, the typical deposit required by first time buyers ahas doubled from 12% to 24% of purchase price  1980-2012. Number of homes being built has fallen from  250,000 a year in 1980 to 150,000 in 2012, and that is the bottom line why there is a shortage.

[hireton]

A final comment on Prof Goodwin's typology of the hoovering elite:

[Mr Poppy]

Lots of info released on CON HMG's Energy and Net Zero Plan. Yes, its mostly "rehash" but it does put a lot more flesh on the bones. Yes, it is also "insufficient" in many areas so I look forward to those criticising it giving details of what they will do instead (eg for Reeves to state how she'll cost any LAB "vague")

Links for the official stuff:
www.gov.uk/government/news/shapps-sets-out-plans-to-drive-multi-billion-pound-investment-in-energy-revolution

Environment is fairly high on "Most Important Issues" and certainly an area where LAB can show they'd be a much better option than CON.

[moby]

Mar 30, 2023 0:14:42 GMT ptarmigan said:

At the risk of restarting the Jeremy Corbyn discourse, I’m baffled by this idea that Labour simply had to bar him for their electoral prospects. Yes, of course the Tories would have tried to resurrect him as a bogeyman come the next election, but I can’t imagine the prospect of Corbyn on the backbenches would have frightened any horses. It would, for the most part, have been seen for the desperate ploy that it was. No one would even be talking about Corbyn right now if Labour hadn’t expended so much energy trying to eject him. The rationale given in Starmer’s motion was also risible and would logically mean that Shadow Cabinet member Ed Milliband should also be swiftly expunged.

But aside from Starmer’s duplicity, my main issue with Labour at the moment is that I don’t understand what their pitch is. They just don’t seem to be offering anything at all to anyone of a LOC disposition, and appear to be endlessly pitching to ROC voters, without offering anything very concrete in the way of solutions to the massive issues this country faces. Not that it really matters who I vote for (if Lab win my seat they’ll win a healthy majority) but in terms of voting intention I seem to vacillate almost daily. Whenever Sunak opens his mouth you can put me in the Labour column, when Starmer does the same you can place me in the column marked “hmm, what are the Greens up to these days?” I’m being a bit facetious but it feels as though the electoral choice is going to be between a precipitous decline and a managed decline for Britain. Sure, the latter’s a less terrifying prospect, but it’s not exactly attractive, is it?

Isn't it naive though to see politics as attractive in any sense. The reality is in a modern democracy there are a set of options limited by economic and political realities, (Truss found that out recently when she tried to introduce her version of Trussonomics. She and her supporters really believed they could move the dial. They were excited by their radical ideas for 'growth'. The markets didn't agree however and she was gone within 40 odd days! for reasons not initiated by political decisions in this country. Her removal was a decision made by her own Party reacting to international markets and the polls. Many of the tories I'm sure agreed with her but knew it wouldn't wash, so compromised their beliefs and got rid of her pronto to save their own necks. We left of centre are no different; we are constrained by exactly the same forces. I always knew this when I campaigned and voted for Corbyn's Labour. His manifesto was radical but his choices were always going to be constrained by economic realities. I believe that you have to be realistic about this and look at the wider picture. Social justice, equality of opportunity etc are always prioritised by Labour more than the tories (imo).....even if those choices are not being defined in they way that you want them to be. That's the stark reality of our voting system. The Greens under the present system are a wasted vote. The Tories don't fear you voting Green, they fear you voting Labour.

[Danny]

Mar 29, 2023 21:19:03 GMT alec said:

US briefings from the Pentagon now suggest they think Russia has lost 220,000 troops in Ukraine, up 20,000 in a month. They invaded with 190,000, so that's a very big loss.

You have to remember though that Russia's armed forces are significantly conscripts called up in two drafts a year for a one year term of service. All those in the army at the start of the war would have been released by now (dont know if they are now required to continue serving). So the conscription rate was always sufficient to maintain that size of armed forces, whether they left the army because their time was up or because they were killed.

Presumably too the quality of new troops is now no worse than at the start, being similar short service men. Although having said that, conscripts did originally have the option not to take part and there were limits on the percentages allowed. But equally its not clear to what extent these rules were ignored, they certainly were ignored to some extent because cases came to light as scandals about the unpreparedness of the invasion force.

Re-classifying the occupied regions of Ukraine as parts of russia legally has allowed the kremlin more discretion in requiring conscripts to serve there, because its officially just posting them inside russia.

There were reports at the start of high officer casualties, but since these didnt seem to be doing a very good job, its possible promotion from the ranks after a year's war experience has created a new rather more competent officer force. If about half the army was longer service men, its hard to say whether these have been significantly reduced, or again may have been improved by experience over the last year. In general wikipedia is rather vague on the modern state of the Russian army except to say it declined drastically in numbers since the collapse of the USR, but had an enormous amount of old equipment still in storage.

[Mr Poppy]

Mar 30, 2023 6:33:40 GMT jimjam said:

Alec,

When Mortgage rates are 2% or so, as they were for 13 years from 2009, (lower than 1% for some people on older trackers) and investment returns averaged over 5% paying off ones mortgage is the opposite of astute as I see it.

Over leveraging once self on the belief that the "Magic Money Tree" and ultra low interest rates would last forever - not very astute IMO

NB I have already mentioned the difficulties for young people getting on to the ladder but I have little sympathy for people who have leveraged themselves up to build massive extensions; buy a house far bigger than their needs; buy 2nd homes; invest in BTL; etc.

I would also prefer HMG policy that creates jobs in areas with cheaper housing and ends the 'London Centric' view. Sadly too late to 'Stop HS2' but plenty of more affordable houses up near you, in parts of South Wales, etc. Some great job opportunities in those areas nowadays. 

You can get 2-3bed terraced 'fixer upper' houses in Neath, or flats in Swansea for <£50k. 
www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E61453&radius=1.0&sortType=1&propertyTypes=&mustHave=&dontShow=&furnishTypes=&keywords=

There is affordable starter homes in much of the country and hopefully a continued focus on revitalising industry and well paid jobs in those areas. 

NB I've been fairly interested in S.Wales and the Celtic Freeport for some time. Still interested in all the stuff on the East Coast of England. 
My interest in S.Wales started with the great MTB they have down there and great to see some much needed investment going into the area with the Welsh and UK govt working constructively together. 

[Danny]

Mar 29, 2023 22:25:31 GMT mercian said:

You must be doing something wrong. My daughter bought her semi a few years ago for about the same price and has now paid it off. This was partly done by selling her terrace house which she started buying when she was 19. She's a primary school teacher and her husband has a skilled part-time manual job because he does a lot of the child care, so they're not greatly wealthy, but they don't have foreign holidays or buy expensive clothes or extravagant food or go out much except to their caravan. I suppose it's a matter of priorities.

Individually priorities may matter, but no its not. Its because most consumer goods including holidays have become cheaper over time, whereas homes have soared in price. They therefore need a lot more of your income committed to purchase. Not forgetting the catch-22 situation that regulations may prevent you getting a sufficient mortgage to buy a home, even though the overall cost is less than renting.

[steve]

moby
While I just about make into the boomer generation we're not all the same, while I did have a job that permitted me to purchase a property at an affordable price back in the 1980's family circumstances and a failed side venture meant they all had to go nearly 25 years ago ( as a serving police officer at the time I couldn't go bankrupt it would have cost me my career)
So for the next twenty years while being " boomers" on good incomes we rented, for 10 of those we were only allowed a basic bank account, no credit cards and basically cash only , our children knew nothing other than private rented housing, fortunately despite having to renew annually one of the rentals lasted nearly twenty years, didn't stop our landlord giving us the boot with two months notice .
Not bemoaning my lot it's still been relatively comfortable and on our retirement we were able to afford to buy a house in the North West outright.
We can't actually live in it as we're still supporting our twenty something kids in the South who despite decent jobs can't afford to buy, so we're still bloody renting!

[domjg]

Mar 30, 2023 7:21:14 GMT moby said:

Mar 30, 2023 0:14:42 GMT ptarmigan said:

At the risk of restarting the Jeremy Corbyn discourse, I’m baffled by this idea that Labour simply had to bar him for their electoral prospects. Yes, of course the Tories would have tried to resurrect him as a bogeyman come the next election, but I can’t imagine the prospect of Corbyn on the backbenches would have frightened any horses. It would, for the most part, have been seen for the desperate ploy that it was. No one would even be talking about Corbyn right now if Labour hadn’t expended so much energy trying to eject him. The rationale given in Starmer’s motion was also risible and would logically mean that Shadow Cabinet member Ed Milliband should also be swiftly expunged.

But aside from Starmer’s duplicity, my main issue with Labour at the moment is that I don’t understand what their pitch is. They just don’t seem to be offering anything at all to anyone of a LOC disposition, and appear to be endlessly pitching to ROC voters, without offering anything very concrete in the way of solutions to the massive issues this country faces. Not that it really matters who I vote for (if Lab win my seat they’ll win a healthy majority) but in terms of voting intention I seem to vacillate almost daily. Whenever Sunak opens his mouth you can put me in the Labour column, when Starmer does the same you can place me in the column marked “hmm, what are the Greens up to these days?” I’m being a bit facetious but it feels as though the electoral choice is going to be between a precipitous decline and a managed decline for Britain. Sure, the latter’s a less terrifying prospect, but it’s not exactly attractive, is it?

Isn't it naive though to see politics as attractive in any sense. The reality is in a modern democracy there are a set of options limited by economic and political realities, (Truss found that out recently when she tried to introduce her version of Trussonomics. She and her supporters really believed they could move the dial. They were excited by their radical ideas for 'growth'. The markets didn't agree however and she was gone within 40 odd days! for reasons not initiated by political decisions in this country. Her removal was a decision made by her own Party reacting to international markets and the polls. Many of the tories I'm sure agreed with her but knew it wouldn't wash, so compromised their beliefs and got rid of her pronto to save their own necks. We left of centre are no different; we are constrained by exactly the same forces. I always knew this when I campaigned and voted for Corbyn's Labour. His manifesto was radical but his choices were always going to be constrained by economic realities. I believe that you have to be realistic about this and look at the wider picture. Social justice, equality of opportunity etc are always prioritised by Labour more than the tories (imo).....even if those choices are not being defined in they way that you want them to be. That's the stark reality of our voting system. The Greens under the present system are a wasted vote. The Tories don't fear you voting Green, they fear you voting Labour.

What I find hard to accept with the attitude shown by Ptarmigan is that we have one of the worst governments ever seen in this country on so many measures, moral, competency, cultural, respect for probity and law etc etc, not to mention actual, deliberate damage to the social fabric and to the economy (something that even Trump wouldn't countenance) and yet repeatedly I hear people say 'why should I vote Labour because they're not blah blah enough'. It would be nice if they were and could still win elections handsomely but right now I'll take the casting of the tory party into the abyss over anything else. It's a necessary thing to happen, for them to be shown that the nonsense we've put up with for years now will in the end have a price. A heavy price. They have to know they need to change their culture because they will be back one day, they always are. When that happens, for the sake of the country, we need them to come back chastised and in a very different form. 

I'm also astute enough to realise that whatever electioneering rhetoric is used by Labour pre election once in power they will naturally lean towards social justice whereas the tories are always seeking to do the opposite. 

[Danny]

Mar 29, 2023 22:48:06 GMT mercian said:

@sotonsaint
Ok. I'm simplifying this a bit, but she started buying a terraced house 20 years ago at the age of 19 for £30K.

Down here in hastings which has often been touted as one of the cheapest places for property in the SE, you couldnt have found such a house at that price in 1980, never mind 2000. Did i mention scotland is crying out for immigrants whereas the south is demanding they be drowned?

[graham]

Mar 30, 2023 7:21:14 GMT moby said:

Mar 30, 2023 0:14:42 GMT ptarmigan said:

At the risk of restarting the Jeremy Corbyn discourse, I’m baffled by this idea that Labour simply had to bar him for their electoral prospects. Yes, of course the Tories would have tried to resurrect him as a bogeyman come the next election, but I can’t imagine the prospect of Corbyn on the backbenches would have frightened any horses. It would, for the most part, have been seen for the desperate ploy that it was. No one would even be talking about Corbyn right now if Labour hadn’t expended so much energy trying to eject him. The rationale given in Starmer’s motion was also risible and would logically mean that Shadow Cabinet member Ed Milliband should also be swiftly expunged.

But aside from Starmer’s duplicity, my main issue with Labour at the moment is that I don’t understand what their pitch is. They just don’t seem to be offering anything at all to anyone of a LOC disposition, and appear to be endlessly pitching to ROC voters, without offering anything very concrete in the way of solutions to the massive issues this country faces. Not that it really matters who I vote for (if Lab win my seat they’ll win a healthy majority) but in terms of voting intention I seem to vacillate almost daily. Whenever Sunak opens his mouth you can put me in the Labour column, when Starmer does the same you can place me in the column marked “hmm, what are the Greens up to these days?” I’m being a bit facetious but it feels as though the electoral choice is going to be between a precipitous decline and a managed decline for Britain. Sure, the latter’s a less terrifying prospect, but it’s not exactly attractive, is it?

Isn't it naive though to see politics as attractive in any sense. The reality is in a modern democracy there are a set of options limited by economic and political realities, (Truss found that out recently when she tried to introduce her version of Trussonomics. She and her supporters really believed they could move the dial. They were excited by their radical ideas for 'growth'. The markets didn't agree however and she was gone within 40 odd days! for reasons not initiated by political decisions in this country. Her removal was a decision made by her own Party reacting to international markets and the polls. Many of the tories I'm sure agreed with her but knew it wouldn't wash, so compromised their beliefs and got rid of her pronto to save their own necks. We left of centre are no different; we are constrained by exactly the same forces. I always knew this when I campaigned and voted for Corbyn's Labour. His manifesto was radical but his choices were always going to be constrained by economic realities. I believe that you have to be realistic about this and look at the wider picture. Social justice, equality of opportunity etc are always prioritised by Labour more than the tories (imo).....even if those choices are not being defined in they way that you want them to be. That's the stark reality of our voting system. The Greens under the present system are a wasted vote. The Tories don't fear you voting Green, they fear you voting Labour.

There was always a strong case for removing Corbyn from the Leadership - but not for denying him the right to again be a candidate should his CLP so desire.

A 'wasted' vote is one which is never cast.

[barbara]

Do you think Trevor's daily change of avatar is to fool people into reading his posts by chance instead of scrolling past? Doesn't work with me. You can tell his posts immediately owing to the bold and capital bits. Just like you can tell Danny's by the sheer number of paragraphs. Scroll scroll scroll.

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2023 5:21:47 GMT steve said:

The British public have more trust for the European union than they do for the UK parliament and government.
Since national shoot yourself in the foot day in 2016 faith in the UK institutions has fallen precipitously while confidence in the European union has grown.
The same survey from World values also showed that only 24% of people said they were “happy” that the UK voted to quit the EU while 49% said they were disappointed.

Our shambolic government and the born again brexitanians in the Labour leadership are yet again behind the curve of public opinion which calls at the very least for a far more productive relationship with Europe.

Of course there will always be Brexit cultists who prefer their own fantasies to the truth and assorted useful idiots who think eventually that turd can be polished.
But the majority of the electorate have seen the failed nationalist exceptionalist frolic for the bull shit it so obviously is and want it consigned to the bin.
Sadly the damage the brexitanian luddites have done is far harder to repair than it was to break, our stolen rights and the life chances of our children will remain diminished for some time to come.



www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/30/britons-more-confidence-in-eu-than-westminster-poll-brexit

A notable admission in that article by David Davis, pointing out that Brexit was built on lies promulgated by parts of the British media   .......

"The former Brexit secretary David Davis said the marked shift was probably a result of “a whiny, unpleasant, bitchy row” in parliament over Brexit since late 2017, “which has been completely unproductive”.

He said UK government crises over the coronavirus pandemic would have added to the slump in trust and suggested that since Brexit, the media – he named the Sun, Daily Telegraph, Times and Daily Mail – have stopped “kicking Brussels all the time” as they did in the run-up to the 2016 referendum.

“No one reads about square strawberries or straight bananas any more,” he said."

Now it's the turn of refugees, and others, with much the same effect.

[graham]

Mar 30, 2023 7:55:21 GMT domjg said:

Mar 30, 2023 7:21:14 GMT moby said:

Isn't it naive though to see politics as attractive in any sense. The reality is in a modern democracy there are a set of options limited by economic and political realities, (Truss found that out recently when she tried to introduce her version of Trussonomics. She and her supporters really believed they could move the dial. They were excited by their radical ideas for 'growth'. The markets didn't agree however and she was gone within 40 odd days! for reasons not initiated by political decisions in this country. Her removal was a decision made by her own Party reacting to international markets and the polls. Many of the tories I'm sure agreed with her but knew it wouldn't wash, so compromised their beliefs and got rid of her pronto to save their own necks. We left of centre are no different; we are constrained by exactly the same forces. I always knew this when I campaigned and voted for Corbyn's Labour. His manifesto was radical but his choices were always going to be constrained by economic realities. I believe that you have to be realistic about this and look at the wider picture. Social justice, equality of opportunity etc are always prioritised by Labour more than the tories (imo).....even if those choices are not being defined in they way that you want them to be. That's the stark reality of our voting system. The Greens under the present system are a wasted vote. The Tories don't fear you voting Green, they fear you voting Labour.

What I find hard to accept with the attitude shown by Ptarmigan is that we have one of the worst governments ever seen in this country on so many measures, moral, competency, cultural, respect for probity and law etc etc, not to mention actual, deliberate damage to the social fabric and to the economy (something that even Trump wouldn't countenance) and yet repeatedly I hear people say 'why should I vote Labour because they're not blah blah enough'. It would be nice if they were and could still win elections handsomely but right now I'll take the casting of the tory party into the abyss over anything else. It's a necessary thing to happen, for them to be shown that the nonsense we've put up with for years now will in the end have a price. A heavy price. They have to know they need to change their culture because they will be back one day, they always are. When that happens, for the sake of the country, we need them to come back chastised and in a very different form. 

I'm also astute enough to realise that whatever electioneering rhetoric is used by Labour pre election once in power they will naturally lean towards social justice whereas the tories are always seeking to do the opposite. 

You appear to be inclined to provide Starmer et al with a blank cheque and so turn a blind eye to his authoritarian Stalinist tendencies. Moreover, Starmer has resiled on much of what he promised when a leadership candidate and in doing so revealed himself to as much of a compulsive liar as Boris Johnson.