Just watched the lady who reported Damian Green Kate Maltby. Complete contrast to Weinstein's PA who was transparently honest. This one strikes me as a publicity seeking phony.That seems like a partisan observation to me. She seems quite reasonable, she isn't using hyperbolic language, she didn't call for his resignation, and she is probably right to say the whole eposide won't do her any favours. All sounded very credible.
You seem to be missing the point that the next referendum will take place when what was said about the economy will largely be happening.All true. There'd be more Remain --> Leave than Leave --> Remain switchers I reckon - it'd be a simple matter for Vote Leave 2.0 to compare and contrast what Remain said would happen to the economy with what's actually happened.I think you're right.3 times now the voters have defied expectations.The likely outcome of a second referendum IMHO would be a larger Leave win on a substantially lower turnout as unfussed 2016 Remain voters stayed at home disgusted by the whole exercise.
1) Tory majority
2) Leave vote
3) Corbyn surge
For this reason the politicians won't risk calling a second referendum, because it almost certainly wont go the way they expect.
Remoaners would achieve something with a second referendum though, ensuring we got a worse deal by weakening our negotiating position and shortening our negotiating time.
Many of my mother's family and their neighbours don't vote in elections, despite being in a marginal seat.
Many, but not all of them, voted in the referendum, and those that did all voted Leave. They'd be voting Leave again, and they'd be angrier; they'd be encouraging colleagues (from the same background, and with the same limited chances because of free movement) to do the same. Leave, as the status quo, would have confident spokesmen in every single Leave voter.
All this gets a part of me quite liking the idea of a second referendum, because winning again with a bigger margin would be pretty damn sweet. However, actually holding a second referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process first time round, so I'd rather not.
House price crashes are extremely painful, as you say. Nevertheless if you look around post-2008, those places that had them early (which is most of them), such as the US, Ireland, Spain, are in a better place as far as capital valuations are concerned than are we with our Osborne-extended bubble.A few years ago I was in Japan, at a very posh ski resort called Hakuba. By the side of the slopes were some very nice Alpine cabins owned by the Tokyo jet set. On the eve of the Nagano Olympics in 1998, these cabins of perhaps 1,400 square feet changed hands for $5m. They can now be bought for just $500,000. Small differences in supply and demand can make big differences to price.Well, good unless as a consequence they can't.
Chinese and foreigners want to live there. Between 1997 and 2003, prices fell 70%.
I mention these things because there is good reason to think that UK - and particularly London - house prices will come down a long way.
And that'll be good for people in their late 20s and early 30s who haven't bought homes. And it'll be absolutely awful for those who are mortgaged up to their eyeballs. They would never forgive the government.
In house price crashes several things happen that all make buying cheap houses harder (for some people) than before.
1/ Nobody knows when the crash is over until a few years afterwards, so buyers don't want to buy in case prices worsen, and discretionary sellers don't want to sell in case prices improve. So the amount of stock falls, and so do transactions. In 1990, a two-bedroom flat in Little Venice that was £150k in 1988 could be had for £120k. Except it couldn't, because there were none for sale. Ask me how I know.
2/ Next, mortgage lenders want bigger deposits because a 10% deposit and 10% annual depreciation turns a 90% mortgage into a 100% mortgage (and after 2 years into a 110% mortgage). They also curb the salary multiples they'll consider, for the same reason.
3/ The ability to amass such deposits falls, however, because equity has been eroded among existing owners. Among FTBs and non-owners the problem is that their rent goes up. If you can avoid a £10k loss by paying £9k more rent, that's what you do.
4/ We saw all the above in 1988 to 1996. An extra bit of spice this time is that if house prices halved, and volumes halved as well, stamp duty would have to quadruple. That can only mean higher levels further down, so see 3/. Alternatively borrowing or some other tax would have to go up.
The above is without considering the implications of higher rates should those be a factor in triggering this conjectural crash.
If crashes were good and benign things they'd be called something like puppies, or unicorns, or something.
Lol, two elections away! Who knows what state the Tories will be in by then?When the country becomes Venezuela without the sunshine the Tory Party will no longer need the votes of Kippers to win, it will need the votes of anyone with half a brain!The problem the Tory party has it that it is dependent on the votes of UKIP types - perhaps 5 to 10% of its 42% share. When it fails to deliver a hard Brexit (which it will) they will return to UKIP.Perhaps, we then end up with a Corbyn and McDonnell majority, renationalisations, big tax increases, companies moving abroad as corporation tax is increased, unions flexing their muscles, the deficit and debt and borrowing increasing all coupled with a UK still leaving the EU and single market. We could be an economic basket case in no time and any half sensible Tory leader could make a quicker recovery than Lazarus. Though hopefully Boris taking over in the autumn, dumping dementia tax, restoring free school lunches etc and offering a more fudged Brexit could avert the disaster of a Corbyn governmentA scenario that ends with a Tory wipeout worse than 1997 is perfectly conceivable. Tories and DUP press on, on their own, with a hard Brexit (with some concessions to NI), the UK takes an economic hit compounded by the EU's intention that we should be seen to suffer from our departure, the ensuing downturn is owned entirely by the Tories, compounding the serious damage to their credibility and reputation delivered last Thursday; when the election finally comes, all Blair's records are broken.Lol The Tories won't die off. That's a prediction as crackers as the demise of Labour was.Watching the Tory party eat itself is harrowing. Someone needs to be humane and put it out of its misery.Oh, it's wonderful. The entertainment highlight of my decade. What an unmitigated humiliation. This country will be all the better when we have seen off these ideologues.
It's like one of those scenes in X Factor where it thought it was the next Sinatra, but discovered the hard way it can't sing a note.
Brutal. If not cruel.
Nevertheless the margin of error for one party in one (ok two) age groups in 10% of the country ought to demand some sort of health warning along the lines of "this data is probably meaningless..."?You can only go with the data you are providedCouple of snippets from the Survation tables.The 18-34 Scottish subsample must be minute!
May leads Corbyn 41-39 as best PM in the 25-34 age group which is interesting.
Looks like the under 34 years and the elderly are fading away from the SNP. Sell SNP seats?