Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit Card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to MyNameIsUrl,GSVsowhat,johnstevens77,BusyBumbleBee,88V8, for Donating to support the site

The article that Remainers need to read

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
anticrank
Lemon Slice
Posts: 726
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 10:34 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#158957

Postby anticrank » August 12th, 2018, 12:51 pm

mutantpoodle wrote:'''The only people who’ll benefit from Brexit are the priveliged, that’s why the Tories are backing it, ''

no they are backing it because it was what 17.4 m people voted for

if you look at the vote spread you can see that more 'TORY' constituencies voted REMAIN
and more 'Labour' voted LEAVE

so whatever the end outcome...its NOT because Tories want it!...just look at the balls up they making of negotiations...


https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majorit ... eferendum/

According to these estimates, around 75% of constituencies that were won by the Conservatives in the 2017 general election voted to Leave, while around 61% of Labour constituencies voted to Leave.

Somewhere in the region of 70% of Labour voters support Remain. The percentages are approximately reversed for Tory voters. It is certainly the case that Tory constituency party members and voters want Brexit, and constituency members, in particular, want it hard. And their support for Brexit is very much behind the Government's refusal, from the outset, to countenance a soft Norway-style future relationship.

It is also palpable nonsense that 17.4 million leave voters voted for the same thing, beyond the mere act of leaving. There is a very obvious divergence of interests between the largely Tory impulse to tear down regulation and engage in so-called 'unilateral free trade' and the many ordinary Leave voters who will be shafted by such a Brexit. They are two Leaver constituencies whose interests are not even approximately aligned.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4055
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#158967

Postby XFool » August 12th, 2018, 2:06 pm

anticrank wrote:It is also palpable nonsense that 17.4 million leave voters voted for the same thing, beyond the mere act of leaving. There is a very obvious divergence of interests between the largely Tory impulse to tear down regulation and engage in so-called 'unilateral free trade' and the many ordinary Leave voters who will be shafted by such a Brexit. They are two Leaver constituencies whose interests are not even approximately aligned.

Possibly more than those two? Interestingly this is, to some extent, reflected on these boards, where Beeswax pursues the: "It's not about the economy!" Brexit line, while ap889 pursues the: "What about the workers?" version - at base, an economic argument.

Charlottesquare
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1035
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159003

Postby Charlottesquare » August 12th, 2018, 3:50 pm

Sundance13 wrote:
Lootman wrote:
Sundance13 wrote: like it or not we all live in the same country and a bitter & divided country isn’t a great place to live, nor will it likely be a very successful country going forwards.

But we were divided either way. What would the Remain side have done to heal that division? I submit - nothing.

Anyway we are divided in many ways, between rich and poor, Tory and Labour, old and young, Remain and Leave, homeowners and renters, managers and workers, urban and rural.

Whether Leaving is successful won't be known for years. But I do not believe that anything can heal divisions. They will just persist and people will complain forever. Isn't that normal?


Well remain probably wouldn’t have used the win as a mandate to push for an extreme interpretation of the result (Schengen/Euro) that wasn’t supported by a majority of the country.

You say we won’t know if Leave has been successful for years, but depends what you describe ‘successful’ as? What is your criteria for a successful Brexit?


Whilst knowing it was a success will imho certainly take many years knowing it was not a success will likely be evident far faster.

I suspect that the test period for deciding it was not a success, if that is what it turns out to be, will only at most need to be circa two years post leaving. (Leaving here being defined as when all transition agreements/extensions, if there are transition agreements/extensions, have expired)

Charlottesquare
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1035
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159006

Postby Charlottesquare » August 12th, 2018, 4:03 pm

beeswax wrote:Re read Lootman's post because its very good and illuminating and encapsulates what the divisions are in this country and that isn't going to be 'healed' by Brexit as you know the pigs always take over the trough. (Courtesy of George Orwell)..

It did show though that 52% ie 17.4 million were pissed off with the status quo and Professor Hennesy rightly said that no government has succeeded in getting more than 50% of the vote in a General Election since 1935 which is a hell of a long time, nearly a century and shows how fragile our democracy is and if we don't get a clean Brexit which most leavers if not all leavers voted for then who are they going to vote for at the next GE and that is why politics matter more than the economics...I think I read not long ago that we spend 35 billions on Quango's each year and so why not just do away with them all and build more social housing and give people at the bottom a huge tax break or increase in the minimum wage that will encourage more people into work...Every ex MP and certainly Cabinet Ministers seem to be on these Quangos and so there is a huge divide between the haves and have nots..

Name me one Quango that has repaired your pothole or bought you a loaf of bread? They are leeches and so is the HoL and so how much does that cost us...I wonder what people make of it when they see them all in their ermine? 300 pounds a day tax free for a few minutes attendance would feed most families for a week..

So Parliament and Labour especially need to reconsider their approach to the Brexit vote and then start to represent the average voter and not the privileged..When I read that almost any Director of any Company is awarded massive shares worth millions and maybe with that company a very short time despite a million plus salary to boot AND then a massive payout for failure, there is something very very wrong with our values..

It's the politicians that have got us all in this mess and they seem incapable of providing the solutions...Brexit is easy...We should have left the next week and then argued the toss afterwards and there was no way they would have stopped their half a trillion sales of goods here and grounded planes as they really did have more to lose than we did...But fancy us getting lumbered with the useless Teresa May that has failed in every job she has had and got it by default....It really is amazing even now that the public saw that when she lost a 20 point lead in the OP to a hung parliament...Brexit cannot and will not happen while she is still PM....But the Lords and ermine await her presence, we can only hope that is soon, very soon!

Lady Maydeadhead?


1. In the event of a non clean Brexit somewhat unsure your 52% are all going to march behind one political party, it hardly seems credible that they will all back the Conservatives given the hash they have made not delivering your sought clean Brexit, so which single party will benefit?

2. Re quangos it really depends how they are defined, is something like The Seafish industry Authority a quango? To quote their website, "Seafish is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) set up by the Fisheries Act 1981 to improve efficiency and raise standards across the seafood industry"

http://www.seafish.org/about-seafish

3. Re companies, do you mean quoted FTSE 100 companies rather than any company? I have six appointments as a director or company secretary of private companies, I do not earn millions or have shares worth millions, you appear to be labelling all companies based on a very few very large organisations who in fact, in the main, operate in a very limited way within the UK and accordingly whose salaries really are of little concern solely to the UK.

anticrank
Lemon Slice
Posts: 726
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 10:34 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159011

Postby anticrank » August 12th, 2018, 4:23 pm

XFool wrote:
anticrank wrote:It is also palpable nonsense that 17.4 million leave voters voted for the same thing, beyond the mere act of leaving. There is a very obvious divergence of interests between the largely Tory impulse to tear down regulation and engage in so-called 'unilateral free trade' and the many ordinary Leave voters who will be shafted by such a Brexit. They are two Leaver constituencies whose interests are not even approximately aligned.

Possibly more than those two? Interestingly this is, to some extent, reflected on these boards, where Beeswax pursues the: "It's not about the economy!" Brexit line, while ap889 pursues the: "What about the workers?" version - at base, an economic argument.


Brexit is very conflicted. That, and the government's inability to be honest with the public (or with the Tory grass roots), is why the government is tied up in knots trying to develop schemes -- at the last minute -- that satisfy everyone.

The idea that the government is delivering something that 17.4 million people voted for is beyond absurd.

anticrank
Lemon Slice
Posts: 726
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 10:34 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159055

Postby anticrank » August 12th, 2018, 6:51 pm

anticrank wrote:
XFool wrote:
anticrank wrote:It is also palpable nonsense that 17.4 million leave voters voted for the same thing, beyond the mere act of leaving. There is a very obvious divergence of interests between the largely Tory impulse to tear down regulation and engage in so-called 'unilateral free trade' and the many ordinary Leave voters who will be shafted by such a Brexit. They are two Leaver constituencies whose interests are not even approximately aligned.

Possibly more than those two? Interestingly this is, to some extent, reflected on these boards, where Beeswax pursues the: "It's not about the economy!" Brexit line, while ap889 pursues the: "What about the workers?" version - at base, an economic argument.


Brexit is very conflicted. That, and the government's inability to be honest with the public (or with the Tory grass roots), is why the government is tied up in knots trying to develop schemes -- at the last minute -- that satisfy everyone.

The idea that the government is delivering something that 17.4 million people voted for is beyond absurd.


A Twitter thread that converges, after a few tweets, on the argument above:

https://mobile.twitter.com/GeorgePeretz ... 4092870656

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4055
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159076

Postby XFool » August 12th, 2018, 8:05 pm

anticrank wrote:A Twitter thread that converges, after a few tweets, on the argument above:

https://mobile.twitter.com/GeorgePeretz ... 4092870656

An intelligent Brexit discussion? Can this be real?

"The Government has been faced with a mandate that promised both “taking back control” and responding to the world view @GoodwinMJ sets out but *also* delivering it in a way that avoids the economic shock associated with leaving the EU."

"Now, @GoodwinMJ criticises the “establishment” response to the vote. But his criticism of that response fails to engage with the problem that the “establishment” has been given an impossible mandate. The political system simply can’t deliver what it has been told to deliver."

Um... That sounds very like what I have been thinking.

But then again:

"He outlines the grievences of the Brexiteers. The problem is that Brexit is unlikely to answer any of them. However, had the vote not happened, would any change at all have taken place?

Interesting.

And I really liked the BJ quote! ("...real problems... that have nothing to do with Europe." - February 2016) :lol:

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4649
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159125

Postby BobbyD » August 13th, 2018, 1:33 am

anticrank wrote:Brexit is very conflicted. That, and the government's inability to be honest with the public (or with the Tory grass roots), is why the government is tied up in knots trying to develop schemes -- at the last minute -- that satisfy everyone.


If such schemes existed somebody would have uncovered them by now... as I recall saying 2 years ago...

There is no scheme which satisfies all the people, there isn't even a scheme which satisfies all Brexiteers, and the only scheme which comes anywhere close to satisfying half of the people is Remain...

On which point...

More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to remain in EU


- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -to-remain

supremetwo
Lemon Slice
Posts: 783
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:20 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159143

Postby supremetwo » August 13th, 2018, 9:05 am

BobbyD wrote:More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to remain in EU
- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -to-remain

When wage-earners cotton on to this, there could well be a change of minds back the other way.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -arrive-uk

The number of people applying for the average low-skilled vacancy has fallen from 24 to 20 in the past year and from 19 to 10 for medium-skilled posts.

Half of organisations with recruitment problems said they had increased starting salaries in response.

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4649
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159207

Postby BobbyD » August 13th, 2018, 12:43 pm

supremetwo wrote:The number of people applying for the average low-skilled vacancy has fallen from 24 to 20 in the past year and from 19 to 10 for medium-skilled posts.

Half of organisations with recruitment problems said they had increased starting salaries in response.


...just wait until the price increases kick in.

Charlottesquare
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1035
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159211

Postby Charlottesquare » August 13th, 2018, 12:53 pm

supremetwo wrote:
BobbyD wrote:More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to remain in EU
- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -to-remain

When wage-earners cotton on to this, there could well be a change of minds back the other way.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -arrive-uk

The number of people applying for the average low-skilled vacancy has fallen from 24 to 20 in the past year and from 19 to 10 for medium-skilled posts.

Half of organisations with recruitment problems said they had increased starting salaries in response.


Until they later experience the "no free lunch" outcome, higher wages without increased productivity tend to impact inflation, couple it with likely further sterling devaluation impacting import costs and one gets a perfect storm ,with those already owning assets like property having a great time until the inevitable interest rate rises to try to quell the inflationary pressures, welcome back to the 1970s.

Must admit the 1970s were actually great for some, my dad bought our family home in 1967 for £6,600 and sold it in 1982 for £50,000 (would have been £60,000 but for some hidden dry rot discovered) , this and selling his firm meant he effectively retired age 55, pretty decent return for just fifteen years.

beeswax
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1953
Joined: December 20th, 2016, 11:20 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159219

Postby beeswax » August 13th, 2018, 1:31 pm

Charlottesquare wrote:
supremetwo wrote:
BobbyD wrote:More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to remain in EU
- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -to-remain

When wage-earners cotton on to this, there could well be a change of minds back the other way.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -arrive-uk

The number of people applying for the average low-skilled vacancy has fallen from 24 to 20 in the past year and from 19 to 10 for medium-skilled posts.

Half of organisations with recruitment problems said they had increased starting salaries in response.


Until they later experience the "no free lunch" outcome, higher wages without increased productivity tend to impact inflation, couple it with likely further sterling devaluation impacting import costs and one gets a perfect storm ,with those already owning assets like property having a great time until the inevitable interest rate rises to try to quell the inflationary pressures, welcome back to the 1970s.

Must admit the 1970s were actually great for some, my dad bought our family home in 1967 for £6,600 and sold it in 1982 for £50,000 (would have been £60,000 but for some hidden dry rot discovered) , this and selling his firm meant he effectively retired age 55, pretty decent return for just fifteen years.


No, it was always tough buying your first house as I did in in 1968 for about 2900 pounds and the mortgage and rates took half my income and remember we could not afford cheap garden tools and borrowed some to do the garden. I also had a weekend job collecting TV rents...PLus an old banger car that had virtually rotted away. I now see quite young couples living in detached houses with two cars in the drive..

But what I wanted to say is the increase in house prices is no use if then you have to pay the same or more for another house and no doubt your dad did the same when he moved...They are only ever useful if you move abroad for something cheaper or you die and leave it to your kids. Anyway the LA will take it if you need to go into care and so its not really a win win as some may suggest..

Charlottesquare
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1035
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159246

Postby Charlottesquare » August 13th, 2018, 2:45 pm

beeswax wrote:
Charlottesquare wrote:
supremetwo wrote:When wage-earners cotton on to this, there could well be a change of minds back the other way.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -arrive-uk

The number of people applying for the average low-skilled vacancy has fallen from 24 to 20 in the past year and from 19 to 10 for medium-skilled posts.

Half of organisations with recruitment problems said they had increased starting salaries in response.


Until they later experience the "no free lunch" outcome, higher wages without increased productivity tend to impact inflation, couple it with likely further sterling devaluation impacting import costs and one gets a perfect storm ,with those already owning assets like property having a great time until the inevitable interest rate rises to try to quell the inflationary pressures, welcome back to the 1970s.

Must admit the 1970s were actually great for some, my dad bought our family home in 1967 for £6,600 and sold it in 1982 for £50,000 (would have been £60,000 but for some hidden dry rot discovered) , this and selling his firm meant he effectively retired age 55, pretty decent return for just fifteen years.


No, it was always tough buying your first house as I did in in 1968 for about 2900 pounds and the mortgage and rates took half my income and remember we could not afford cheap garden tools and borrowed some to do the garden. I also had a weekend job collecting TV rents...PLus an old banger car that had virtually rotted away. I now see quite young couples living in detached houses with two cars in the drive..

But what I wanted to say is the increase in house prices is no use if then you have to pay the same or more for another house and no doubt your dad did the same when he moved...They are only ever useful if you move abroad for something cheaper or you die and leave it to your kids. Anyway the LA will take it if you need to go into care and so its not really a win win as some may suggest..


Well, in my father's case he downsized and bought two smaller properties and banked the change; he was a have.

My point was more that wage increases, which do not correspond with increased economic activity, tend, in the long run, to be inflationary, and inflation tends to favour the asset rich- so reduced immigration leading to recruitment problems cured, in the short term, with wage increases, tends to be a nil sum game in the longer term and may well make the gap between the haves and have not worse not better.

There is no magic cure for an economy whose bottom (and possibly middle with AI) quartiles do not have value adding employment at the wage levels needed to be comfortable, and wishful thinking re selling high cost production (as wages are a cost of production) to the ROW are a somewhat forlorn prospect until wages in ROW increase and wages in the developed world stagnate, or continue to drop in real terms, so that say the UK is competitive in the world re far more products.

Yes, we can gear an economy to high tech, niche, high vale added products, but as I posted in another post there is going to be a very finite market for these types of products (only so many nations can afford them en masse) and we have too big a population for everyone to have such employment.

Imho we all need to accept that the developed world will see a stagnation or reduction in relative standards of living, a smaller world has changed the economic dynamics.

I have no ready answers to the issue, but one answer i know will not work is Brexit, from a selfish ,developed world, perspective external tariffs protect EU employment, albeit slowing the development of the rest of the world, the situation we had within the EU at least allowed a more gradual leveling. A crash out onto WTO will accelerate the process and will likely be very painful for the lower paid.

Brexit is imho mere distraction from the real issues, it creates a tangible target, makes people believe (Imho erroneously) that it is a cure, but I suspect those who voted for it as a harbinger of a more equal society are going to be very, very, disappointed.

Ashfordian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1088
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:47 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159255

Postby Ashfordian » August 13th, 2018, 3:02 pm

The BBC's Brexit bias has occurred again today.

They were interviewing the founders of PoundStretcher because of the TV show that is currently being broadcast about the company.

They wanted a bad news Brexit story so asked how the company was dealing with the devaluation of Sterling since the referendum vote. They got the answer that the company was now sourcing more items locally. The presenters quickly moved onto the next question. Obviously, this good news Brexit story was explored further and is making headlines on the BBC's website or their Business section of the website ;)

This is another win following the Brexit vote but there are large sections of the British media, including the so-called unbiased BBC, that suppress good Brexit news or just not report on it at all...

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159274

Postby ursaminortaur » August 13th, 2018, 3:46 pm

Ashfordian wrote:The BBC's Brexit bias has occurred again today.

They were interviewing the founders of PoundStretcher because of the TV show that is currently being broadcast about the company.

They wanted a bad news Brexit story so asked how the company was dealing with the devaluation of Sterling since the referendum vote. They got the answer that the company was now sourcing more items locally. The presenters quickly moved onto the next question. Obviously, this good news Brexit story was explored further and is making headlines on the BBC's website or their Business section of the website ;)

This is another win following the Brexit vote but there are large sections of the British media, including the so-called unbiased BBC, that suppress good Brexit news or just not report on it at all...


It is only good news if such a change allows PoundStretcher to survive and prosper. Presumably before the fall in Sterling they purchased products from overseas because they were the best quality products they could get for the price otherwise they would have purchased in the UK. So does the fact that they are now forced to buy more locally sourced items mean that the quality of their products has fallen or are they having to pay more for the products - just less than they would if they had stuck with their overseas suppliers because of the devaluation ? If so will that help PoundStretcher survive ?

anticrank
Lemon Slice
Posts: 726
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 10:34 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159292

Postby anticrank » August 13th, 2018, 4:24 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
Ashfordian wrote:The BBC's Brexit bias has occurred again today.

They were interviewing the founders of PoundStretcher because of the TV show that is currently being broadcast about the company.

They wanted a bad news Brexit story so asked how the company was dealing with the devaluation of Sterling since the referendum vote. They got the answer that the company was now sourcing more items locally. The presenters quickly moved onto the next question. Obviously, this good news Brexit story was explored further and is making headlines on the BBC's website or their Business section of the website ;)

This is another win following the Brexit vote but there are large sections of the British media, including the so-called unbiased BBC, that suppress good Brexit news or just not report on it at all...


It is only good news if such a change allows PoundStretcher to survive and prosper. Presumably before the fall in Sterling they purchased products from overseas because they were the best quality products they could get for the price otherwise they would have purchased in the UK. So does the fact that they are now forced to buy more locally sourced items mean that the quality of their products has fallen or are they having to pay more for the products - just less than they would if they had stuck with their overseas suppliers because of the devaluation ? If so will that help PoundStretcher survive ?


Yeah, PoundStretcher loses, its customers lose, but local suppliers gain. Hurrah for Brexit.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4055
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159314

Postby XFool » August 13th, 2018, 5:21 pm

Ashfordian wrote:The BBC's Brexit bias has occurred again today.
...
This is another win following the Brexit vote but there are large sections of the British media, including the so-called unbiased BBC, that suppress good Brexit news or just not report on it at all...

Umm... You 'observed' this yourself, did you?

I wonder what exactly is the motivation for the BBC's 'bias'? Do you have a 'theory'? ;)

beeswax
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1953
Joined: December 20th, 2016, 11:20 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159316

Postby beeswax » August 13th, 2018, 5:33 pm

Charlottesquare wrote:
beeswax wrote:
Charlottesquare wrote:
Until they later experience the "no free lunch" outcome, higher wages without increased productivity tend to impact inflation, couple it with likely further sterling devaluation impacting import costs and one gets a perfect storm ,with those already owning assets like property having a great time until the inevitable interest rate rises to try to quell the inflationary pressures, welcome back to the 1970s.

Must admit the 1970s were actually great for some, my dad bought our family home in 1967 for £6,600 and sold it in 1982 for £50,000 (would have been £60,000 but for some hidden dry rot discovered) , this and selling his firm meant he effectively retired age 55, pretty decent return for just fifteen years.


No, it was always tough buying your first house as I did in in 1968 for about 2900 pounds and the mortgage and rates took half my income and remember we could not afford cheap garden tools and borrowed some to do the garden. I also had a weekend job collecting TV rents...PLus an old banger car that had virtually rotted away. I now see quite young couples living in detached houses with two cars in the drive..

But what I wanted to say is the increase in house prices is no use if then you have to pay the same or more for another house and no doubt your dad did the same when he moved...They are only ever useful if you move abroad for something cheaper or you die and leave it to your kids. Anyway the LA will take it if you need to go into care and so its not really a win win as some may suggest..


Well, in my father's case he downsized and bought two smaller properties and banked the change; he was a have.

My point was more that wage increases, which do not correspond with increased economic activity, tend, in the long run, to be inflationary, and inflation tends to favour the asset rich- so reduced immigration leading to recruitment problems cured, in the short term, with wage increases, tends to be a nil sum game in the longer term and may well make the gap between the haves and have not worse not better.

There is no magic cure for an economy whose bottom (and possibly middle with AI) quartiles do not have value adding employment at the wage levels needed to be comfortable, and wishful thinking re selling high cost production (as wages are a cost of production) to the ROW are a somewhat forlorn prospect until wages in ROW increase and wages in the developed world stagnate, or continue to drop in real terms, so that say the UK is competitive in the world re far more products.

Yes, we can gear an economy to high tech, niche, high vale added products, but as I posted in another post there is going to be a very finite market for these types of products (only so many nations can afford them en masse) and we have too big a population for everyone to have such employment.

Imho we all need to accept that the developed world will see a stagnation or reduction in relative standards of living, a smaller world has changed the economic dynamics.

I have no ready answers to the issue, but one answer i know will not work is Brexit, from a selfish ,developed world, perspective external tariffs protect EU employment, albeit slowing the development of the rest of the world, the situation we had within the EU at least allowed a more gradual leveling. A crash out onto WTO will accelerate the process and will likely be very painful for the lower paid.

Brexit is imho mere distraction from the real issues, it creates a tangible target, makes people believe (Imho erroneously) that it is a cure, but I suspect those who voted for it as a harbinger of a more equal society are going to be very, very, disappointed.


Brexit creates new opportunities. Whether we take them or not is up to us..If the EU existed just for trade and nothing else as most trading blocs in the world then no problem but it doesn't and so why do we need to be a member when we could have a Canada type trade deal and I think from memory the reason why it was rejected at the time was because it didn't include services and May's new deal doesn't and so why give all we have to the EU to basically want the same as Canada?

Your father must have bought either a very large property which most of us can't as a first house, he was very well off, or moved down into a less desirable area and had money to spare you say? I think I would need your or his workings to be convinced as just doing that on the back of an envelope it's impossible for me to have done that because two smaller properties in my area would always cost more than one property even quite a large one...eg . Two semi's 150 grand each vs one detached at what? 300K to break even and then cash to spare? In my area in 1970 semi's were around 3K and detached 4K...and so two semi's then would have been 6K vs the 4K and why I need to see his calculations? ;) To make it work I would have to sell the detached for 7K...and I could have bought a mansion for that back then...Of course he could have one left him? ;)

Charlottesquare
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1035
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159334

Postby Charlottesquare » August 13th, 2018, 6:23 pm

beeswax wrote:
Charlottesquare wrote:
beeswax wrote:
No, it was always tough buying your first house as I did in in 1968 for about 2900 pounds and the mortgage and rates took half my income and remember we could not afford cheap garden tools and borrowed some to do the garden. I also had a weekend job collecting TV rents...PLus an old banger car that had virtually rotted away. I now see quite young couples living in detached houses with two cars in the drive..

But what I wanted to say is the increase in house prices is no use if then you have to pay the same or more for another house and no doubt your dad did the same when he moved...They are only ever useful if you move abroad for something cheaper or you die and leave it to your kids. Anyway the LA will take it if you need to go into care and so its not really a win win as some may suggest..


Well, in my father's case he downsized and bought two smaller properties and banked the change; he was a have.

My point was more that wage increases, which do not correspond with increased economic activity, tend, in the long run, to be inflationary, and inflation tends to favour the asset rich- so reduced immigration leading to recruitment problems cured, in the short term, with wage increases, tends to be a nil sum game in the longer term and may well make the gap between the haves and have not worse not better.

There is no magic cure for an economy whose bottom (and possibly middle with AI) quartiles do not have value adding employment at the wage levels needed to be comfortable, and wishful thinking re selling high cost production (as wages are a cost of production) to the ROW are a somewhat forlorn prospect until wages in ROW increase and wages in the developed world stagnate, or continue to drop in real terms, so that say the UK is competitive in the world re far more products.

Yes, we can gear an economy to high tech, niche, high vale added products, but as I posted in another post there is going to be a very finite market for these types of products (only so many nations can afford them en masse) and we have too big a population for everyone to have such employment.

Imho we all need to accept that the developed world will see a stagnation or reduction in relative standards of living, a smaller world has changed the economic dynamics.

I have no ready answers to the issue, but one answer i know will not work is Brexit, from a selfish ,developed world, perspective external tariffs protect EU employment, albeit slowing the development of the rest of the world, the situation we had within the EU at least allowed a more gradual leveling. A crash out onto WTO will accelerate the process and will likely be very painful for the lower paid.

Brexit is imho mere distraction from the real issues, it creates a tangible target, makes people believe (Imho erroneously) that it is a cure, but I suspect those who voted for it as a harbinger of a more equal society are going to be very, very, disappointed.


Brexit creates new opportunities. Whether we take them or not is up to us..If the EU existed just for trade and nothing else as most trading blocs in the world then no problem but it doesn't and so why do we need to be a member when we could have a Canada type trade deal and I think from memory the reason why it was rejected at the time was because it didn't include services and May's new deal doesn't and so why give all we have to the EU to basically want the same as Canada?

Your father must have bought either a very large property which most of us can't as a first house, he was very well off, or moved down into a less desirable area and had money to spare you say? I think I would need your or his workings to be convinced as just doing that on the back of an envelope it's impossible for me to have done that because two smaller properties in my area would always cost more than one property even quite a large one...eg . Two semi's 150 grand each vs one detached at what? 300K to break even and then cash to spare? In my area in 1970 semi's were around 3K and detached 4K...and so two semi's then would have been 6K vs the 4K and why I need to see his calculations? ;) To make it work I would have to sell the detached for 7K...and I could have bought a mansion for that back then...Of course he could have one left him? ;)


No, he worked up to that family home, it was not a first home, he bought it in the 1960s and sold it in 1982 when we were all running away/ getting married etc.

In effect he sold a nine room/kitchen/ two bathroom three storey terrace in Learmonth Place, Edinbugh, and bought a three bedroom flat in Learmonth Court, Edinburgh (today worth circa £320k, valuation tricky as the three beds there do not come up for sale often) and then a couple of years later he also bought a 2-3 bed cottage in Cove, Berwickshire. The flat was £18,000, cottage was £15,000, he invested the difference (£17,000) towards his retirement which together with the sale of his legal practice gave him enough to stop working.

The sold family house today would be circa £850-£1,000k or more (last time it was up for sale a few years ago it was o/o £850k). The cottage was actually sold in 2013 after he died for £168k, likely nearer £200/210k now.

In effect you have the multiplier of circa £6,600 in 1967 to say £60,000 in 1982, 9 times multiple in fifteen years, that was the 1970s for you, the cottage was bought in 1985 at £15k and sold in 2013 after his death for £168k, only 11 times multiplier in 28 years (but actually lower as he did spend some money on it improving it in the interval- double glazing, new pastille roof, new doorway to rear created).

1970s inflation was great for the asset rich downsizer, if wages again start running away then the same will happen again; high inflation is a boon for non leveraged property owners but not so great for the JAMs, they are the ones who will suffer, galloping interest and job insecurity.

If I was self interested I ought to fully embrace Brexit/ devaluation/high inflation etc, I will also win as I own a house in Sweden, if sterling devalues that will be worth more in sterling terms if I sell it, the subsequent high interest we could well see in the UK will have negligible impact on me as I have been in my current house for 21 years this November, my mortgage is tiny, but I am not enough of a rogue to push an economic case for my own self benefit.

The fall out of the EU via Brexit if no agreement will hit all those who have not had a long working life to accumulate assets, the have nots, a lot of whom have been fooled into thinking it will improve their lot in life.

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3518
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 1158 times

Re: The article that Remainers need to read

#159339

Postby tjh290633 » August 13th, 2018, 6:31 pm

beeswax wrote:No, it was always tough buying your first house as I did in in 1968 for about 2900 pounds and the mortgage and rates took half my income and remember we could not afford cheap garden tools and borrowed some to do the garden. I also had a weekend job collecting TV rents...PLus an old banger car that had virtually rotted away. I now see quite young couples living in detached houses with two cars in the drive..

But what I wanted to say is the increase in house prices is no use if then you have to pay the same or more for another house and no doubt your dad did the same when he moved...They are only ever useful if you move abroad for something cheaper or you die and leave it to your kids. Anyway the LA will take it if you need to go into care and so its not really a win win as some may suggest..


We bought our first 3-bed semi in the Peak District in 1961, having saved the wife's pay for over 2 years and living with her parents. It cost £2,600 and our mortgage was £1,600. We moved in 1963 to Rochdale, where we bought a 4-bed chalet bugalow for £3,300 having sold for £2,950, and now had a mortgage of £2,000. Our next move was to Sussex, where we bought a 4-bed semi in 1968 for £7,950, with a mortgage of £5,000, having sold for £4,800. Our next move came in 1970 to a 4-bed detached for £9,300 and a mortgage of £8,000, having sold for £8,600. Our final move came in 1978, to a 4-bed 2-bath detached house which cost £32,000, with a mortgage of £15,000, having sold for £28,500. That mortgage was paid off in 1997.

The key to it all was that initial saving. Interest rates went up and down, about 5.5% initially when we paid about £11 a month.

As you rightly say, increasing prices are no help unless you are downsizing. The ridiculous level of stamp duty is a deterrent to downsizing and also to people moving up the ladder. The noticeable thing round here is people buying smaller houses then extending them, either upwards in bungalows or sideways and backwards in houses, often converting the garage. This reduces the pool of smaller houses for those starting or moving up the ladder.

Now we are faced with Inheritance Tax at 40% on a fair chunk of what is left. Even paying for care for a few years will not make much difference. One is tempted to take a lot of expensive holidays, or change cars frequently, to use some of the taxable band. There are limits to how much one can pass on to grandchildren in advance, except as Potentially Exempt Transfers. Charitable donations or bequests may be the way.

TJH


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests