** The General Election Thread **

[blackbike]

Don't blame Corbyn.

He is sticking to his principles as he's done for decades.

Labour's membership are to blame for the party's current chaos because they chose Corbyn as their leader.

When a group of people make such a disastrous and idiotic decision it is hardly surprising that the electorate doesn't want them running the country.

Labour's membership is dominated by middle class public sector professionals who tell us they are clever and sophisticated.

Their selection of Corbyn suggests otherwise.

[pwa]

It's a lot. It's not rich.

I'd agree, but "rich" is just a word, and not a very helpful one. Wealth is a spectrum to which words like "rich" and "poor" are applied in a crude and subjective way. Surely we should get away from the word "rich" and just say that incomes of £70k are high and merit higher levels of taxation.

With regard to London, property prices and rents are driven by shortage and by income levels. Homes sell for what buyers are able to pay. Homes in London have risen in value partly because incomes have risen so much. And owning a property in London is a great retirement policy. Sell up when you retire and move to a nice location elsewhere and live off the difference.

[old_windbag]

You can't.

I think we need household management courses .

If you earned £70-80k had a non working high maintenance wife and also 6 kids..... you'd have some thinking to do. Outside of that it's a very healthy, comfortable, worry free, no wolves at the door existence.

Not sure how I survive on my income..... but I do and don't have an unhappy existence either. I have to choose what I spend on and when at times but it's not a pained existence in any sense. Yes I don't go to the pictures, or have a huge sky subscription, or travel the world, nor have a brand new SUV but do I need any of those. I do have a nice second hand supermini, I have a bike, panniers and a tent if I wish to use, wildlife and the stars. Perhaps my values are different.

[bovlomov]

I do have a nice second hand supermini, I have a bike, panniers and a tent if I wish to use, wildlife and the stars.

Why the two panniers? You can't use them both at once.

[reohn2]

You can't.

I think we need household management courses .

If you earned £70-80k had a non working high maintenance wife and also 6 kids..... you'd have some thinking to do. Outside of that it's a very healthy, comfortable, worry free, no wolves at the door existence.

Not sure how I survive on my income..... but I do and don't have an unhappy existence either. I have to choose what I spend on and when at times but it's not a pained existence in any sense. Yes I don't go to the pictures, or have a huge sky subscription, or travel the world, nor have a brand new SUV but do I need any of those. I do have a nice second hand supermini, I have a bike, panniers and a tent if I wish to use, wildlife and the stars. Perhaps my values are different.

Expectations are high fed by the projected consumer society of 'being what you have',and so it follows that if you don't 'have' you aren't 'being' or are somehow a lesser being.
It's how rank and unbridled capitalism works,'I own therefore I am'.........

[Vorpal]

You can't.

I think we need household management courses .

It doesn't only depend upon perspective, but also situation. Someone who lives in a rual area, and has paid off a mortgage can live like a king (or nearly so) on £70 000 per year.

Someone with a mortage and a family to support (without a 'high maintenance' wife) and any special or extra expenses such as a special needs child, elderly parents or grandparents on a very low income, etc., might still struggle to make ends meet.

Working is expensive in many ways that aren't so obvious. Clothing, transport, child care, lunches, insurance, etc. are things that add up pretty quickly. In London, they add to more than the average salary. That's often justification for one parent in a family to work part time (during school hours), or not at all, unless both can make well above the costs of transport child care, etc. to allow them to work.

Business Insider figured in 2014 that a family needed an income of £40 000 per annum to have an acceptable standard of living. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-wh ... eds-2014-6

That's well above average salary for one person. A family on £70 000 in London might well find that purchasing a family home was beyond their means.

[old_windbag]

Expectations are high fed by the projected consumer society of 'being what you have',and so it follows that if you don't 'have' you aren't 'being' or are somehow a lesser being.
It's how rank and unbridled capitalism works,'I own therefore I am'.........

I always enjoyed watching time team. But when they dug up anything glittery it was always "high status" . This person must have been of high status who owned this, human nature will continue down it's little path century after century. Today they queue at the release of an apple smartphone so they too can be seen as high status.

Someone with a mortage and a family to support (without a 'high maintenance' wife) and any special or extra expenses such as a special needs child, elderly parents or grandparents on a very low income, etc., might still struggle to make ends meet.

Working is expensive in many ways that aren't so obvious. Clothing, transport, child care, lunches, insurance, etc. are things that add up pretty quickly. In London, they add to more than the average salary. That's often justification for one parent in a family to work part time (during school hours), or not at all, unless both can make well above the costs of transport child care, etc. to allow them to work.

Vorpal I stil pay insurances and still have fuel costs etc. When I wasn't self employed( now much worse off ) my earnings which were below uk average still paid my mortgage, commuting, clothes etc with adequate spare to cover for those financial emergencies we have. I had no employer paid pension, private healthcare etc. I had to cut my cloth accordingly. Perhaps that I grew up in a socio-economic area that taught me the value of money, having very little of it in my family due to circumstance. I certainly haven't had anything gifted me, I suppose thats why I balk at £70-80 not being seen as high.

Also the £40k for a fair standard of living. If that was a single person they'd be taxed on approx £30k of that..... a couple on £20k a piece taxed on £20k approx but then would recieve nearly £2k back if they have 2 children as well as a small amount more for married couple allowance plus they have access tax credits in their various guises for having children. So the £40k is different based on a single person as compared to a shared home income from 2 salaries.

[Vorpal]

Vorpal I stil pay insurances and still have fuel costs etc. When I wasn't self employed( now much worse off ) my earnings which were below uk average still paid my mortgage, commuting, clothes etc with adequate spare to cover for those financial emergencies we have. I had no employer paid pension, private healthcare etc. I had to cut my cloth accordingly. Perhaps that I grew up in a socio-economic area that taught me the value of money, having very little of it in my family due to circumstance. I certainly haven't had anything gifted me, I suppose thats why I balk at £70-80 not being seen as high.

I understand that, but look at house prices in London. £400 000 will get you a 2 bedroom flat in the cheaper areas of London. People who are willing to live with a family in Barking can get a terraced house for that. Families can do somewhat better outside of London, but then transport and child care costs consequently go up. Longer commutes not only mean higher child care costs, but also less family time. Insurance in London is more expensive. Insurance for a family is more expensive. And for a family buying a house that costs 6 or times their combined salaries, mortgage insurance is likely a wise purchase. And what happens if interest rates go up? They're bound to at some point.

[old_windbag]

Families can do somewhat better outside of London, but then transport and child care costs consequently go up. Longer commutes not only mean higher child care costs, but also less family time. Insurance in London is more expensive. Insurance for a family is more expensive. And for a family buying a house that costs 6 or times their combined salaries, mortgage insurance is likely a wise purchase. And what happens if interest rates go up? They're bound to at some point.

Vorpal I'm beginning to think we should ring fence london off( m25 is useful boundary ) and declare it a country in it's own right. We can then look after the needs of the rest of the uk( maybe have manchester as capital ) and let the new country londinium govern itself and fund it's infrastructure needs. A population double that of new zealand in an area a few hundredths the size.

We are talking two separate countries in effect, outside london, inside london.

[Bonefishblues]

It's a lot. It's not rich.

I'd agree, but "rich" is just a word, and not a very helpful one. Wealth is a spectrum to which words like "rich" and "poor" are applied in a crude and subjective way. Surely we should get away from the word "rich" and just say that incomes of £70k are high and merit higher levels of taxation.

With regard to London, property prices and rents are driven by shortage and by income levels. Homes sell for what buyers are able to pay. Homes in London have risen in value partly because incomes have risen so much. And owning a property in London is a great retirement policy. Sell up when you retire and move to a nice location elsewhere and live off the difference.

I'd like to too but Labour started it!

[pliptrot]

Vorpal I'm beginning to think we should ring fence london off( m25 is useful boundary ) and declare it a country in it's own right. We can then look after the needs of the rest of the uk( maybe have manchester as capital ) and let the new country londinium govern itself and fund it's infrastructure needs.

Not the first time such a good idea has been posited. Some have made the comparison with Singapore, and those who think Singapore is a good example of -err,- anything, clearly don't know the place. There, as elsewhere it seems, anyone who actually does anything is astonishing badly rewarded. How people survive in the place is beyond me. London will be much like that before long (it is a bit like that now) and I cannot see how that is a good thing for us not in London, nor for the majority in London. What people miss is that wealth is created by adding value to something - passing money around between banks and bumping along on the bottom selling each other houses do not do that. The quicker we isolate London and get on with what matters the better.

[Psamathe]

Is it the media ? Whenever I see Corbyn on TV making a speak (excerpts) they seem to chose the most significant bit and he comes across really badly. I can't see what else the media could do. Maybe not show any excerpts of him ?

I can't say it isn't the media, can't say it is. Maybe some evidence about how the media has caused Corbyn's polling to fall so disastrously? At this point any half ok'ish opposition should be riding high (given the state of e.g. NHS, e.g. house building, etc). It is often easier to blame something else that accept the real reason and Corbyn does appear good at failing to recognise reality.

Ian

But which do you prefer,someone who talks the talk,eloquently.
Or someone who walks the walk and isn't afraid to ?

Walking the walk is no good if you are never going to get anywhere because you keep tying your shoelaces together.

But the issue is more that O actually don't really have a choice because rightly or wrongly enough of the electorate think he is such a disaster (as in him personally, his skills as a leader, how he comes across, etc.) that it seems he will not get elected. However excellent his policies, he is so bad at talking nobody listens. So his policies will never see the light of day and by blocking the leadership, nobody who can attract votes can take over. And even if whoever took over didn't have the same left wing agenda Corbyn does, at least it would be more equitable and more caring that what we are going to end-up with because Corbyn clings on with no hope.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Corbyn's main problem is not that he is wrong about stuff, but that he will not bring enough voters with him. He is pitching too far to the left of where the middle ground currently lies. That is the political reality. Labour badly needs a pragmatic leader who can take us in a good direction without scaring half the electorate by seeming unrealistic. Listening to Corbyn yesterday I happily agreed that the things he wanted to spend money on are things that could do with money spending on them, but I don't really believe that he can rake in the funds to pay for all those things without frightening off investors. What Labour needs is a new Blair, but without the foreign policy disaster of Iraq. I know Blair, to many, was Tory-lite, but people voted for him time after time. And while he was in office we had increased spending on schools and the NHS, whilst also being business friendly. Tory-lite maybe, but the alternative is Tory-not-lite. That is the political reality that we have to live with. Corbyn ensures that Tory values do not have to be diluted.

But Tory-lite is better than Tory-heavy and with Corbyn blocking the Labour leadership he is condemning us to Tory-heavy. As you say, Tory-lite might not be ideal but it's a lot better than Conservatives with a big majority and a leader who is scared of losing their support ...

Ian

[Psamathe]

I think JC is deeply flawed on every level, I'm afraid :(

I'm more afraid of the crevasse of flaws in a government led by Theresa May or any other prospective Tory leader on offer.

TBH I can't see Labour winning outright but I can see a coalition with other parties with the good of the country as a whole at heart and not only interested in certain sections of society at the expense of those at the bottom of the pile.

I can't see other parties being prepared to form a formal coalition with a Corbyn lead Labour. Look a the damage the coalition did to the Lib Dems. It's a risky business coalition and Corbyn is not very good at compromise. Best that might happen is cooperative voting on issues where several parties have broad agreement (against a minority government).

But I can't see that anything like happening. We note the past failings of the pollsters but that is purely on a right or wrong basis (1st past the post). But if you look at the error margins between their predictions and the outcome they actually were not anything like as bad as people think. And the current polls are so massively outside the worse ever polling error margins.

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

Was it not Tina Turner who sang "What's Policy got to do, got to do with it?" or do I misremember