Blairites staging a coup...

[UGagain]

We never have had it so good. Point to a period in history where you think those at the bottom of society were doing worse than they are right now? Is that good enough, I'd suggest no and you'd likely agree, but it's been a damn sight worse in the past

The post war era of Keynesianism was better even with the absurd Bretton Woods agreement.

I'm not agreeing with you at all.

The education system was miles off what it is now in general terms, and was far more elitist, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. The NHS was delivering much worse return, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. Disposable income was far lower and typically any decisions around how it was spent resided with a patriarchy. You couldn't be prosecuted for raping your wife, you'd likely face no investigation even for raping anyone. It was illegal to be gay. Lives have been transformed by the widespread availability of central heating, washing machines and the like,typically female lives as males don't tend to play close to an equal role in domestic chores. I get you not agreeing with me, that's fine plenty don't, I'm not sure why you're so ready to disagree with reality though.

Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

[Digby]

The post war era of Keynesianism was better even with the absurd Bretton Woods agreement.

I'm not agreeing with you at all.

The education system was miles off what it is now in general terms, and was far more elitist, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. The NHS was delivering much worse return, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. Disposable income was far lower and typically any decisions around how it was spent resided with a patriarchy. You couldn't be prosecuted for raping your wife, you'd likely face no investigation even for raping anyone. It was illegal to be gay. Lives have been transformed by the widespread availability of central heating, washing machines and the like,typically female lives as males don't tend to play close to an equal role in domestic chores. I get you not agreeing with me, that's fine plenty don't, I'm not sure why you're so ready to disagree with reality though.

Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

[UGagain]

The education system was miles off what it is now in general terms, and was far more elitist, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. The NHS was delivering much worse return, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. Disposable income was far lower and typically any decisions around how it was spent resided with a patriarchy. You couldn't be prosecuted for raping your wife, you'd likely face no investigation even for raping anyone. It was illegal to be gay. Lives have been transformed by the widespread availability of central heating, washing machines and the like,typically female lives as males don't tend to play close to an equal role in domestic chores. I get you not agreeing with me, that's fine plenty don't, I'm not sure why you're so ready to disagree with reality though.

Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

It was better for everyone because living standards were improving for everyone.

Now they aren't.

So your argument is bollocks.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Tidy £4.6m made in a couple of days for the Labour party.

So, who was more determined to spend £25 and vote; Corbyn supporters or Corbyn haters?

I wouldn't presume that the two are mutually exclusive. There are a fair few Tory supporters who would be delighted to fight Corbyn rather than the wing that won elections.

[jared_7]

The education system was miles off what it is now in general terms, and was far more elitist, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. The NHS was delivering much worse return, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. Disposable income was far lower and typically any decisions around how it was spent resided with a patriarchy. You couldn't be prosecuted for raping your wife, you'd likely face no investigation even for raping anyone. It was illegal to be gay. Lives have been transformed by the widespread availability of central heating, washing machines and the like,typically female lives as males don't tend to play close to an equal role in domestic chores. I get you not agreeing with me, that's fine plenty don't, I'm not sure why you're so ready to disagree with reality though.

Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

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

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

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

[UGagain]

Tidy £4.6m made in a couple of days for the Labour party.

So, who was more determined to spend £25 and vote; Corbyn supporters or Corbyn haters?

I wouldn't presume that the two are mutually exclusive. There are a fair few Tory supporters who would be delighted to fight Corbyn rather than the wing that won elections.

Yeah like the Blairites have won elections lateley.

[UGagain]

Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

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

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

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

I'm not conflating anything.

And you appear to be making my argument for me.

[jared_7]

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

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

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

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

I'm not conflating anything.

And you appear to be making my argument for me.

I was quoting Digby.

[UGagain]

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

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

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

I'm not conflating anything.

And you appear to be making my argument for me.

I was quoting Digby.

Sorry. My bad.

[Donny osmond]

Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

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

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

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

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

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

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

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

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

[jared_7]

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

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

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

[Digby]

There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

Though let's not pretend that in 1976 every family could afford to buy a house, and one might even question the virtue of home ownership over having a sensible social/rented sector.

[Donny osmond]

There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Big D]

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

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

In Scotland it is around £140k IIRC, I imagine the average wage would be way down on the UK average too.

[UGagain]

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

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

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

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

Though let's not pretend that in 1976 every family could afford to buy a house, and one might even question the virtue of home ownership over having a sensible social/rented sector.

The only way that the neoleerbals can argue that their results are better than the Keynesian era is to lie.

[Which Tyler]

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

2nd June 2016: http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Euro ... ce-History
No idea the veracity, but every source seems to have a different answer; so hey

"In Q4 2015, the average home in London is now worth around 152% more than the average home located elsewhere in the UK, with the average difference around £275,000 (US$ 401,884), based on the figures from Nationwide."

"London prices increased 11.5% y-o-y in Q1 2016 to an average of £455,984 (US$ 666,373), twice the rate of price increases in the wider market, according to Nationwide."

Therefore, average UK house price outside of London = £455,984 - £275,000 = £180,984


Official HPI for May 2016 shows the following by region: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... y-may-2016

House Prices.jpg

Office of National Statistics gives the following graph for weekly wages: http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabo ... l-earnings

Wages.png

[Sandydragon]

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

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

In Scotland it is around £140k IIRC, I imagine the average wage would be way down on the UK average too.

A quick google search reveals that its variable. The highest earning areas are in London, whilst many jobs have a lOndon weighting attached, although that isn't always that much.

Average income and house prices can be found on an area by area basis, but if you are in a sector which is tied to a geographical location then thats not much comfort.

[Donny osmond]

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

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

In Scotland it is around £140k IIRC, I imagine the average wage would be way down on the UK average too.

On fairness that occurred to me after I'd posted. This could be broken down in a number if ways... In Scotland house prices - and wages - would be massively skewed by the markets in Edinburgh & Aberdeen.

Which really just adds to the point I was trying to make that taking a single snapshot and applying it to everyone isn't a useful addition to a debate about the state of the place.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[jared_7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

[Which Tyler]

ONS have the average wage for tax year ending April 2015 (see edit to my original post for graph format and links)

Wages to house price.jpg

I've referenced the raw figures before - earnings worked out as 52X weekly earning

ONS Notes:

Employees on adult rates, pay unaffected by absence
Full-time defined as employees working more than 30 paid hours per week (or 25 or more for the teaching professions)
2015 data are provisional

[Digby]

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

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

Though let's not pretend that in 1976 every family could afford to buy a house, and one might even question the virtue of home ownership over having a sensible social/rented sector.

The only way that the neoleerbals can argue that their results are better than the Keynesian era is to lie.

Are you contending every family 40 years ago could afford to buy a home, or that 100% home ownership is the only reasonable aim? I'm not actually sure which bit you consider is (or even could be) the lie.

Also we do sort of live in Keynesian times with most government borrowing heavily and a lot of that money going into demand stimulus, even if in odd and inexpert ways all too often. And that's separate to the money printing to provide the finance sector with sufficient liquidity to make up for their enormous shortfalls.

[Digby]

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

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

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

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

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

[Eugene Wrayburn]

There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

[Zhivago]

I was pretty sure that you were wrong and a quick google shows my suspicion to be correct. I think in fact there were no such rules in Thatchers time.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-busines ... c-servants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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