Normally, you would expect the terrorist atrocities to hurt Labour - but they did highlight how badly the Home Office have performed in relation to protecting us. And the person who was at the Home Office for 6 years before becoming Prime Minsiter was May. Her record was rubbish - watering down anti- terrorist laws and cutting Police. Not sure what could have been done about that - and we all wished it wasn't a factor one way or the other because these actions can't ever affect or democracy.
I reckon the Dianne Abbot car crash helped out here!
Fine, the 2015 stats weren't lies so much as thoroughly misleading and you should have focused on the election donations. But looking at the wider evidence, the Tories do get an awful lot of private donations, don't they?
That is an interesting link @Leuth and I can't seem to find anything that goes beyond 2014. The public funds bit is particularly interesting as this is almost all from the Short fund that supports opposition parties e.g. salaries, office expenses etc.
There is no parallel information given for government expenses but it must be more than the £7.5m that the opposition get. How much does the sitting government get from Public funds and are they included in donation totals?
Maybe they could promise to right off people's loans , seems to work for Corbyn.
The student loan book is a fiasco waiting to happen. The deal with student loans is that you start paying them off once you earn a certain amount. Many students don't and won't ever earn enough. In addition the govt are being taken to court by Martyn Lewis of money saving expert because they retrospectively changed the terms. At some point in the future huge amounts will have to be written off. Far better to bite that bullet now rather than continue to pile up huge debts both personal and for the country.
The most realistic solution is to cut the number that go to university. From what I've seen (and it is all anecdotal) there are a huge number of people in higher education that shouldn't be there and are 'wasting' the money that it's costing to educate them.
I find it hard to believe that there is much benefit in providing degrees in communications or media studies to people that are going to be serving fries at McDonalds. This is not an elitist agenda, but there are lots and lots of graduates that don't have the academic qualifications (like having two Ds and an E at 'A' Level) for a graduate training position and will have wasted three years of their lives and run up thousands of pounds of debt (not all of it in government backed student loans) and will still end up in the same kind of job that they could have got at eighteen.
Of my Niece and Nephew's generation there is a feeling that they have been cheated as they did 'A' levels (and got less than average grades) spent three years 'studying' (in reality drinking, playing video games and bunking off lectures) and now they've finished they have huge debts and can't get a job on a basic of £50k with a convertible company car! You see their parents went to University and have all those things. The fact that their parents worked much harder than they did - probably from about thirteen - and achieved much better 'A' levels and secured a place at a much better University and worked much, much harder while there is lost on them.
To get this back to the topic in hand, I think it's obscene that those that don't appreciate education but see it as a three year party should have someone else pay for it for them. Ironically of those graduates that I know that are Accountants or Solicitors (and I know quite a few) none of them begrudge paying back their student loans, but then they were so grateful for the opportunity to study for three years that they worked hard and justified the costs, both the tax payer's contribution and their own.
I think a lot of what you say makes sense @ShootersHillGuru but I think the system itself doesn't make sense so whatever way you look at it some things are wrong. Both Labour and the Tories can take some of the blame for their unwitting errors.
I think you are right that far too many people go to university, it was a laudable aim to increase attendance but just not thought through. It has happened at the same time that we as a nation have cut back on vocational training and in work training like apprenticeships. We have also thrown out a number of checks and balances that ensured that trades people are qualified in what they do (and at the same time reduced inspectors).We have also implied that to not get a degree would be a failure.
This has led to a reduction of people getting trade training (or proper trade training) and people who are clever but perhaps not suitable for academic rigor being pushed into degree courses when they should be doing something vocational and I would include stuff that would lead into engineering qualifications and the like.
The student loan system is not bad per se but it does put poorer people off and only really works if the Government/People compact of work hard and earn the rewards is there for all to see and clearly at the moment it isn't. In short young people do what they are told and get qualifications, they (or their parents) run up debt, they cant get good work (end up in MacDonald's), can't pay of their student debt (so it costs the same as if we had paid in the first place), become disillusioned and don't become an asset to the country which is what they wanted to be. If you then become a student and see that previous years are not getting good jobs then it does all become a bit pointless.
What I do disagree about what you say is that they waste their time, is there any evidence that this happens (proportionately) any more than it has at any other time? I also think you need to bear in mind how relatively easy it was to get a job in the past, even if you were uneducated. That is not the case now for loads of young people who may have tons to offer but no where to offer it.
We need to do something to motivate our young and encourage them into work or we will cease to be a major world economy. I have seen it happen in Spain where the very best of the not privileged young move abroad to pursue their dreams, when Spain's economy picks up their will be nobody to do the jobs.
You can even see that in England in the north where a lack of regional policy has sucked talent to London (overcrowding and overheating the SE at the same time) and leaving fewer people to create work and wealth in the north thus continuing the cycle.
Fine, the 2015 stats weren't lies so much as thoroughly misleading and you should have focused on the election donations. But looking at the wider evidence, the Tories do get an awful lot of private donations, don't they?
How were they misleading? I gave the figures for 2015 which you said were a lie and then I gave you the data to back this up. I never said they were election donations.
According to the electoral commission incomes from 2010 - 2015 were:
The Tory's do get a lot of private donations, not sure why that is either a) an issue or b) a surprise, Labour get a lot of donations from Unions, so what?
I don't think any conservative donator gives a 5th of what Unite give Labour. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that although were I a member of a Union who gave money to a political party that I didn't agree with not sure I'd be happy about that as your hands are largely tied on what they give. At least in the main the Tory donators are giving their own money.
I should add @ShootersHillGuru that I am happy to pay out of my taxes for a joined up education and employment plan that provides the right skilled workers in the right trades. I am equally happy to pay tax to ensure regional development as it benefits us all.
When a union member pays their subs, it does state the political contribution element of it and there's an opt out. Unions then, as they are obliged to do, pass these funds from their members to the Labour Party.
So to class it as one big donation is misleading. It is made up of lots and lots of miniscule donations by ordinary workers. Unions don't make profits by exploiting workers for profit or by taking actions that cause huge environmental damage, or sell weapons, or by selling adspace through their fake news outlets, unlike some large Tory donors and backers. Unions cease to exist once their members stop funding them.
The Tories won't have a chance with the young until their policies are seen to have caused rents to become affordable and home ownership a realistic option for people earning average salaries. The only way that will happen is for prices to fall dramatically which will lead to large numbers of foreclosures and bring down the banks (imo they'd prefer electoral wipe out than pushing that particular button). Osbourne's HPI policies prior to the 2015 election has royally screwed his parties prospects for a generation as there's nothing they can do to address the conundrum.
Fine, the 2015 stats weren't lies so much as thoroughly misleading and you should have focused on the election donations. But looking at the wider evidence, the Tories do get an awful lot of private donations, don't they?
How were they misleading? I gave the figures for 2015 which you said were a lie and then I gave you the data to back this up. I never said they were election donations.
According to the electoral commission incomes from 2010 - 2015 were:
The Tory's do get a lot of private donations, not sure why that is either a) an issue or b) a surprise, Labour get a lot of donations from Unions, so what?
I don't think any conservative donator gives a 5th of what Unite give Labour. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that although were I a member of a Union who gave money to a political party that I didn't agree with not sure I'd be happy about that as your hands are largely tied on what they give. At least in the main the Tory donators are giving their own money.
If you look at those figure @Rob7Lee you will see that 2010 is the only year that the Tories had more donations, that was the last time they received Short funds as they were in opposition for half the year. It would be interesting to see figures that cover both parties either minus Short funds or including whatever the government get from Public Funds which must be more than the opposition. Or perhaps there is something that goes back before 2010 that will give an indication?
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
Fine, the 2015 stats weren't lies so much as thoroughly misleading and you should have focused on the election donations. But looking at the wider evidence, the Tories do get an awful lot of private donations, don't they?
How were they misleading? I gave the figures for 2015 which you said were a lie and then I gave you the data to back this up. I never said they were election donations.
According to the electoral commission incomes from 2010 - 2015 were:
The Tory's do get a lot of private donations, not sure why that is either a) an issue or b) a surprise, Labour get a lot of donations from Unions, so what?
I don't think any conservative donator gives a 5th of what Unite give Labour. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that although were I a member of a Union who gave money to a political party that I didn't agree with not sure I'd be happy about that as your hands are largely tied on what they give. At least in the main the Tory donators are giving their own money.
If you look at those figure @Rob7Lee you will see that 2010 is the only year that the Tories had more donations, that was the last time the received Short funds as they were in opposition for half the year. It would be interesting to see figures that cover both parties either minus Short funds or inclusing whatever the government get from Public Funds which must be more than the opposition. Or perhaps there is something that goes back before 2010 that will give an indication?
I don't think it exists except in a number of FOI requests as the equivalent is the civil service. Looking at the pre 2010 figures should give an indication but doesn't account for trends.
The Tories won't have a chance with the young until their policies are seen to have caused rents to become affordable and home ownership a realistic option for people earning average salaries. The only way that will happen is for prices to fall dramatically which will lead to large numbers of foreclosures and bring down the banks (imo they'd prefer electoral wipe out than pushing that particular button). Osbourne's HPI policies prior to the 2015 election has royally screwed his parties prospects for a generation as there's nothing they can do to address the conundrum.
I agree, it is rather ironic that the self-styled party of aspiration (education, work, home ownership) has affected policies that pull up the ladder for many people who would be their natural constituency.
When a union member pays their subs, it does state the political contribution element of it and there's an opt out. Unions then, as they are obliged to do, pass these funds from their members to the Labour Party.
So to class it as one big donation is misleading. It is made up of lots and lots of miniscule donations by ordinary workers. Unions don't make profits by exploiting workers for profit or by taking actions that cause huge environmental damage, or sell weapons, or by selling adspace through their fake news outlets, unlike some large Tory donors and backers. Unions cease to exist once their members stop funding them.
Having just signed up to GMB online there was no mention of the political donation, no mention of the amount and no option to opt out, however after some digging on their website it does state you can opt out by speaking to branch office or writing to obtain an opt out form. There is a tick box on the paper from however.
It is one big donation from one union, but of course that union received it's money from thousands of members.
Fine, the 2015 stats weren't lies so much as thoroughly misleading and you should have focused on the election donations. But looking at the wider evidence, the Tories do get an awful lot of private donations, don't they?
How were they misleading? I gave the figures for 2015 which you said were a lie and then I gave you the data to back this up. I never said they were election donations.
According to the electoral commission incomes from 2010 - 2015 were:
The Tory's do get a lot of private donations, not sure why that is either a) an issue or b) a surprise, Labour get a lot of donations from Unions, so what?
I don't think any conservative donator gives a 5th of what Unite give Labour. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that although were I a member of a Union who gave money to a political party that I didn't agree with not sure I'd be happy about that as your hands are largely tied on what they give. At least in the main the Tory donators are giving their own money.
If you look at those figure @Rob7Lee you will see that 2010 is the only year that the Tories had more donations, that was the last time the received Short funds as they were in opposition for half the year. It would be interesting to see figures that cover both parties either minus Short funds or inclusing whatever the government get from Public Funds which must be more than the opposition. Or perhaps there is something that goes back before 2010 that will give an indication?
I don't think it exists except in a number of FOI requests as the equivalent is the civil service. Looking at the pre 2010 figures should give an indication but doesn't account for trends.
The link I gave goes back to 2002, it's only totals though, in rounded numbers:
2002, Labour 21m Conservative £10m 2003, Labour 26m Conservative £14m 2004, Labour 29m Conservative £20m 2005, Labour 35m Conservative £24m 2006, Labour 26m Conservative £31m 2007, Labour 32m Conservative £33m 2008, Labour 34m Conservative £32m 2009, Labour 27m Conservative £42m
So some years Tories more but overall Labour considerably more 2002 - 2015 (or even 02 - 10)........
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
I could leave @Cordoban Addick, but I believe in workers rights, fairness and collective representation. Just think £160 a year is a bit toppy for that, and I belong to a union for those reasons and not to give handouts in the millions to political parties.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
I could leave @Cordoban Addick, but I believe in workers rights, fairness and collective representation. Just think £160 a year is a bit toppy for that, and I belong to a union for those reasons and not to give handouts in the millions to political parties.
Then you can opt out of paying the 'political levy' component of your membership dues (usually not a large part).
Plus all unions with a 'political fund' (and that's not all of them) are required to hold a membership ballot every 5 years to decide whether to keep the 'political fund' or not.
When a union member pays their subs, it does state the political contribution element of it and there's an opt out. Unions then, as they are obliged to do, pass these funds from their members to the Labour Party.
So to class it as one big donation is misleading. It is made up of lots and lots of miniscule donations by ordinary workers. Unions don't make profits by exploiting workers for profit or by taking actions that cause huge environmental damage, or sell weapons, or by selling adspace through their fake news outlets, unlike some large Tory donors and backers. Unions cease to exist once their members stop funding them.
Having just signed up to GMB online there was no mention of the political donation, no mention of the amount and no option to opt out, however after some digging on their website it does state you can opt out by speaking to branch office or writing to obtain an opt out form. There is a tick box on the paper from however.
It is one big donation from one union, but of course that union received it's money from thousands of members.
Fine, the 2015 stats weren't lies so much as thoroughly misleading and you should have focused on the election donations. But looking at the wider evidence, the Tories do get an awful lot of private donations, don't they?
How were they misleading? I gave the figures for 2015 which you said were a lie and then I gave you the data to back this up. I never said they were election donations.
According to the electoral commission incomes from 2010 - 2015 were:
The Tory's do get a lot of private donations, not sure why that is either a) an issue or b) a surprise, Labour get a lot of donations from Unions, so what?
I don't think any conservative donator gives a 5th of what Unite give Labour. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that although were I a member of a Union who gave money to a political party that I didn't agree with not sure I'd be happy about that as your hands are largely tied on what they give. At least in the main the Tory donators are giving their own money.
If you look at those figure @Rob7Lee you will see that 2010 is the only year that the Tories had more donations, that was the last time the received Short funds as they were in opposition for half the year. It would be interesting to see figures that cover both parties either minus Short funds or inclusing whatever the government get from Public Funds which must be more than the opposition. Or perhaps there is something that goes back before 2010 that will give an indication?
I don't think it exists except in a number of FOI requests as the equivalent is the civil service. Looking at the pre 2010 figures should give an indication but doesn't account for trends.
The link I gave goes back to 2002, it's only totals though, in rounded numbers:
2002, Labour 21m Conservative £10m 2003, Labour 26m Conservative £14m 2004, Labour 29m Conservative £20m 2005, Labour 35m Conservative £24m 2006, Labour 26m Conservative £31m 2007, Labour 32m Conservative £33m 2008, Labour 34m Conservative £32m 2009, Labour 27m Conservative £42m
So some years Tories more but overall Labour considerably more 2002 - 2015 (or even 02 - 10)........
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
I could leave @Cordoban Addick, but I believe in workers rights, fairness and collective representation. Just think £160 a year is a bit toppy for that, and I belong to a union for those reasons and not to give handouts in the millions to political parties.
Yeah I took union membership for granted until I worked in a place where it was frowned upon.
I have also always been OK with the political levy even though I have rarely voted Labour as I think it is good to have at least one party that is meant to have your back with regards to employment law.
That probably would have been severely tested in the latter years of Blair but I was living abroad.
Chizz, some interesting thoughts and observations,
Just one I wanted to pick up on in particular - 3. Membership.
I've never really thought about it before as I've never been a member of a political party, don't think I ever would be as I don't feel that strongly about a particular party/name to do so. But thinking about it I don't personally know a single person who is a member of any political party other than Labour. Why is that? Especially as I probably know more Tory voters than Labour one's.
Having just looked it up the Conservatives have around 150,000 members, Labour around 480,000 although that was as at March 2017 (so will undoubtedly have risen for Labour) this had previously been reducing following Corbyn's election as Leader.
Only around 1.6% of the electorate are currently a member of the main 3 parties (CON, LAB, LIB's).
So why is membership that important? Through Labours most successful period in the last 40 years they had their lowest membership since records began in 1928.
is it historically parties have had their most successful periods when they are towards the centre?
I think Labour have 650k members and growing @Rob7Lee. I read a really good quote this morning from a Labour person that went something like " The Tories can throw money at an election but we can throw people".
Labour are up 150,000 members since the election taking them to 800,000.
Some are tipping it to go past one million. That would be about 8% of their vote.
There was a widely held perspective that Corbyn was unelectable. That has changed now. Unlike Brexit and the Conservatives, Labour are addressing the concerns of the ordinary voter with solutions not rhetoric.
The Tories will be consumed by leadership changes and Brexit until they finally keel over in a year or two. That's how they will change.
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
Maybe they could promise to right off people's loans , seems to work for Corbyn.
The student loan book is a fiasco waiting to happen. The deal with student loans is that you start paying them off once you earn a certain amount. Many students don't and won't ever earn enough. In addition the govt are being taken to court by Martyn Lewis of money saving expert because they retrospectively changed the terms. At some point in the future huge amounts will have to be written off. Far better to bite that bullet now rather than continue to pile up huge debts both personal and for the country.
The most realistic solution is to cut the number that go to university. From what I've seen (and it is all anecdotal) there are a huge number of people in higher education that shouldn't be there and are 'wasting' the money that it's costing to educate them.
I find it hard to believe that there is much benefit in providing degrees in communications or media studies to people that are going to be serving fries at McDonalds. This is not an elitist agenda, but there are lots and lots of graduates that don't have the academic qualifications (like having two Ds and an E at 'A' Level) for a graduate training position and will have wasted three years of their lives and run up thousands of pounds of debt (not all of it in government backed student loans) and will still end up in the same kind of job that they could have got at eighteen.
Of my Niece and Nephew's generation there is a feeling that they have been cheated as they did 'A' levels (and got less than average grades) spent three years 'studying' (in reality drinking, playing video games and bunking off lectures) and now they've finished they have huge debts and can't get a job on a basic of £50k with a convertible company car! You see their parents went to University and have all those things. The fact that their parents worked much harder than they did - probably from about thirteen - and achieved much better 'A' levels and secured a place at a much better University and worked much, much harder while there is lost on them.
To get this back to the topic in hand, I think it's obscene that those that don't appreciate education but see it as a three year party should have someone else pay for it for them. Ironically of those graduates that I know that are Accountants or Solicitors (and I know quite a few) none of them begrudge paying back their student loans, but then they were so grateful for the opportunity to study for three years that they worked hard and justified the costs, both the tax payer's contribution and their own.
I think a lot of what you say makes sense @ShootersHillGuru but I think the system itself doesn't make sense so whatever way you look at it some things are wrong. Both Labour and the Tories can take some of the blame for their unwitting errors.
I think you are right that far too many people go to university, it was a laudable aim to increase attendance but just not thought through. It has happened at the same time that we as a nation have cut back on vocational training and in work training like apprenticeships. We have also thrown out a number of checks and balances that ensured that trades people are qualified in what they do (and at the same time reduced inspectors).We have also implied that to not get a degree would be a failure.
This has led to a reduction of people getting trade training (or proper trade training) and people who are clever but perhaps not suitable for academic rigor being pushed into degree courses when they should be doing something vocational and I would include stuff that would lead into engineering qualifications and the like.
The student loan system is not bad per se but it does put poorer people off and only really works if the Government/People compact of work hard and earn the rewards is there for all to see and clearly at the moment it isn't. In short young people do what they are told and get qualifications, they (or their parents) run up debt, they cant get good work (end up in MacDonald's), can't pay of their student debt (so it costs the same as if we had paid in the first place), become disillusioned and don't become an asset to the country which is what they wanted to be. If you then become a student and see that previous years are not getting good jobs then it does all become a bit pointless. What I do disagree about what you say is that they waste their time, is there any evidence that this happens (proportionately) any more than it has at any other time? I also think you need to bear in mind how relatively easy it was to get a job in the past, even if you were uneducated. That is not the case now for loads of young people who may have tons to offer but no where to offer it.
We need to do something to motivate our young and encourage them into work or we will cease to be a major world economy. I have seen it happen in Spain where the very best of the not privileged young move abroad to pursue their dreams, when Spain's economy picks up their will be nobody to do the jobs.
You can even see that in England in the north where a lack of regional policy has sucked talent to London (overcrowding and overheating the SE at the same time) and leaving fewer people to create work and wealth in the north thus continuing the cycle.
I don't have any evidence although that's not to say there isn't any. It was more anecdotal and logical reasoning. People that are of a mind to put little effort into their 'O' levels and, more specifically, their 'A' levels would have struggled to get into university twenty years ago. I spent many evenings and weekends doing school work and studying for exams when I had friends that were out doing more fun stuff. Most of those people failed to get a place at university or just didn't bother applying.
Anyone that fails to get a C at 'A' level these days (where they have dumbed-down the exams) is doing what my IT lecturer at university would call 'Trying to fail'. As there are places for students with Ds and Es I, personally, think it suggests that you don't have to be interested in working or studying to get in. It just follows, logically, that these people will not put as much effort in when they get there.
However, I fully admit that this is not much more than guess work from me. A quick Google search suggests that there is some differing opinion about the correlation between 'A' level grades and degree results so maybe my logic is nothing more that a wild stab in the dark.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
I could leave @Cordoban Addick, but I believe in workers rights, fairness and collective representation. Just think £160 a year is a bit toppy for that, and I belong to a union for those reasons and not to give handouts in the millions to political parties.
Unions are not perfect and in the 70s they had too much power and used it in the wrong way. PArt of the problem was management as well, which had a British upper class us and them attitude but there was wrong on both sides. But unions played an important part in workers getting a better deal and there is a need for them today more than ever.
Chizz, some interesting thoughts and observations,
Just one I wanted to pick up on in particular - 3. Membership.
I've never really thought about it before as I've never been a member of a political party, don't think I ever would be as I don't feel that strongly about a particular party/name to do so. But thinking about it I don't personally know a single person who is a member of any political party other than Labour. Why is that? Especially as I probably know more Tory voters than Labour one's.
Having just looked it up the Conservatives have around 150,000 members, Labour around 480,000 although that was as at March 2017 (so will undoubtedly have risen for Labour) this had previously been reducing following Corbyn's election as Leader.
Only around 1.6% of the electorate are currently a member of the main 3 parties (CON, LAB, LIB's).
So why is membership that important? Through Labours most successful period in the last 40 years they had their lowest membership since records began in 1928.
is it historically parties have had their most successful periods when they are towards the centre?
I think Labour have 650k members and growing @Rob7Lee. I read a really good quote this morning from a Labour person that went something like " The Tories can throw money at an election but we can throw people".
Labour are up 150,000 members since the election taking them to 800,000.
Some are tipping it to go past one million. That would be about 8% of their vote.
There was a widely held perspective that Corbyn was unelectable. That has changed now. Unlike Brexit and the Conservatives, Labour are addressing the concerns of the ordinary voter with solutions not rhetoric.
The Tories will be consumed by leadership changes and Brexit until they finally keel over in a year or two. That's how they will change.
I'd agree with the bold part, although he's yet to prove he's electable in my view at the present time, he did get a lot nearer to it than a lot expected, me included.
I still think Conservative have less to do to win the next election compared to Labour. It's hard to see Labour improving next time around on their actual campaign as it was very good and it's hard to see Conservatives doing a lot worse (famous last words!).
@cabbles not sure where you live or what you do/earn, but yes London has become stupidly expensive unlike anywhere else in the country even when you take into account regional salaries. Particularly in the rental market more than the owners market (as although yes it's still expensive extremely low interest rates have meant the average mortgage payment as a % of income is probably not a lot different to 25 years ago).
I think London Weighting in a lot of jobs (particularly public sector for Teachers as an example) should be a lot higher.
I know many teachers who have moved away from London as the salary differential v's cost of living means they can have a much better standard of living out of London.
A teacher on the upper scale in an outer London Borough gross's roughly £42k, a teacher not in London or Fringe (so lets pick Norfolk) gross's £38k, only 4k difference so circa £200-£225 a month less in take home pay. When you take into account a 3 bed semi in say Eltham is £500k and a 3 bed semi in Norfolk can be £250k.
The differential should be a lot more then £4k and for these types of jobs there should be more regional variances, not sure if nursing pay scales are similar?
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
Chizz, some interesting thoughts and observations,
Just one I wanted to pick up on in particular - 3. Membership.
I've never really thought about it before as I've never been a member of a political party, don't think I ever would be as I don't feel that strongly about a particular party/name to do so. But thinking about it I don't personally know a single person who is a member of any political party other than Labour. Why is that? Especially as I probably know more Tory voters than Labour one's.
Having just looked it up the Conservatives have around 150,000 members, Labour around 480,000 although that was as at March 2017 (so will undoubtedly have risen for Labour) this had previously been reducing following Corbyn's election as Leader.
Only around 1.6% of the electorate are currently a member of the main 3 parties (CON, LAB, LIB's).
So why is membership that important? Through Labours most successful period in the last 40 years they had their lowest membership since records began in 1928.
is it historically parties have had their most successful periods when they are towards the centre?
I think Labour have 650k members and growing @Rob7Lee. I read a really good quote this morning from a Labour person that went something like " The Tories can throw money at an election but we can throw people".
Labour are up 150,000 members since the election taking them to 800,000.
Some are tipping it to go past one million. That would be about 8% of their vote.
There was a widely held perspective that Corbyn was unelectable. That has changed now. Unlike Brexit and the Conservatives, Labour are addressing the concerns of the ordinary voter with solutions not rhetoric.
The Tories will be consumed by leadership changes and Brexit until they finally keel over in a year or two. That's how they will change.
I'd agree with the bold part, although he's yet to prove he's electable in my view at the present time, he did get a lot nearer to it than a lot expected, me included.
I still think Conservative have less to do to win the next election compared to Labour. It's hard to see Labour improving next time around on their actual campaign as it was very good and it's hard to see Conservatives doing a lot worse (famous last words!).
@cabbles not sure where you live or what you do/earn, but yes London has become stupidly expensive unlike anywhere else in the country even when you take into account regional salaries. Particularly in the rental market more than the owners market (as although yes it's still expensive extremely low interest rates have meant the average mortgage payment as a % of income is probably not a lot different to 25 years ago).
I think London Weighting in a lot of jobs (particularly public sector for Teachers as an example) should be a lot higher.
I know many teachers who have moved away from London as the salary differential v's cost of living means they can have a much better standard of living out of London.
A teacher on the upper scale in an outer London Borough gross's roughly £42k, a teacher not in London or Fringe (so lets pick Norfolk) gross's £38k, only 4k difference so circa £200-£225 a month less in take home pay. When you take into account a 3 bed semi in say Eltham is £500k and a 3 bed semi in Norfolk can be £250k.
The differential should be a lot more then £4k and for these types of jobs there should be more regional variances, not sure if nursing pay scales are similar?
There is also the matter of the free money that he promised to give away that, in reality, he would never have to pay. It is one thing to promise the earth when you know you will never be found out and another thing when you genuinely think you have a chance of winning. Thus he will not, I believe, be able to promise to give enough people hand outs. It's not a coincidence that the U25s, that were promised thousands of pounds each, voted for him and those over 25, that would have to pay for it, didn't.
The Lib Dems, despite all their PR about the Tories shafting them in coalition, promised, in 2010, to scrap student loans. Fast forward to 2015 and the electorate remembered that they did nothing of the sort when they were 'in Government'.
It's like when your friends tell you that if they win the lottery they will buy you a house. None of them make bold statements like they when they are holding a winning ticket or a £2m cheque.
i think the last election proved Corbyn was electable as he got more votes than Labour governments that were elected.
Did he? In numbers of votes maybe but more people voted and also the Lib Dems who used to be a serious contender in the top three stakes (all be it always 3rd) commanded a much higher percentage of the vote, we are now down to a very much 2 horse race for 1st & 2nd.
Last 3 labour wins;
1997 43.2% of the Vote 2001 40.7% of the Vote 2005 35.2% of the Vote
and 2017 40% of the vote
So he was only higher than 2005 where Lib Dems got 22% of the vote.
Conservatives
2017 - 42.4% of the vote 2015 - 36.9% of the vote 2010 - 36.1% of the vote 1992 - 42.2% of the vote
So 2017 was the most successful of the last 4 wins I always knew that we all had Mrs May wrong.........
You are brilliant Rob, you look up the numbers without really having any sort of grasp of what they are telling you. You can have your Conservative triumph party whenever you want - nobody is stopping you.
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
Property prices are, in part, driven up by buy-to-lets, who are almost exclusively made up of those who already own their own home but have also come into some money and so invest in property for huge profits, as well as just those companies that just own a lot of rental properties.
Property as an investment needs to end. I have a German friend who says that property ownership is much rarer than here because the local authorities are much bigger player in the property markets and rents are driven down.
Renting here is a mug's game - unless you're in social housing, you're effectively paying off the landlord's mortgage, plus interest, plus admin fees, plus the profit margin.
When a union member pays their subs, it does state the political contribution element of it and there's an opt out. Unions then, as they are obliged to do, pass these funds from their members to the Labour Party.
So to class it as one big donation is misleading. It is made up of lots and lots of miniscule donations by ordinary workers. Unions don't make profits by exploiting workers for profit or by taking actions that cause huge environmental damage, or sell weapons, or by selling adspace through their fake news outlets, unlike some large Tory donors and backers. Unions cease to exist once their members stop funding them.
Having just signed up to GMB online there was no mention of the political donation, no mention of the amount and no option to opt out, however after some digging on their website it does state you can opt out by speaking to branch office or writing to obtain an opt out form. There is a tick box on the paper from however.
It is one big donation from one union, but of course that union received it's money from thousands of members.
Fine, the 2015 stats weren't lies so much as thoroughly misleading and you should have focused on the election donations. But looking at the wider evidence, the Tories do get an awful lot of private donations, don't they?
How were they misleading? I gave the figures for 2015 which you said were a lie and then I gave you the data to back this up. I never said they were election donations.
According to the electoral commission incomes from 2010 - 2015 were:
The Tory's do get a lot of private donations, not sure why that is either a) an issue or b) a surprise, Labour get a lot of donations from Unions, so what?
I don't think any conservative donator gives a 5th of what Unite give Labour. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that although were I a member of a Union who gave money to a political party that I didn't agree with not sure I'd be happy about that as your hands are largely tied on what they give. At least in the main the Tory donators are giving their own money.
If you look at those figure @Rob7Lee you will see that 2010 is the only year that the Tories had more donations, that was the last time the received Short funds as they were in opposition for half the year. It would be interesting to see figures that cover both parties either minus Short funds or inclusing whatever the government get from Public Funds which must be more than the opposition. Or perhaps there is something that goes back before 2010 that will give an indication?
I don't think it exists except in a number of FOI requests as the equivalent is the civil service. Looking at the pre 2010 figures should give an indication but doesn't account for trends.
The link I gave goes back to 2002, it's only totals though, in rounded numbers:
2002, Labour 21m Conservative £10m 2003, Labour 26m Conservative £14m 2004, Labour 29m Conservative £20m 2005, Labour 35m Conservative £24m 2006, Labour 26m Conservative £31m 2007, Labour 32m Conservative £33m 2008, Labour 34m Conservative £32m 2009, Labour 27m Conservative £42m
So some years Tories more but overall Labour considerably more 2002 - 2015 (or even 02 - 10)........
Good to see you getting unionised @Rob7Lee . I won't tell the NUT.
Comments
There is no parallel information given for government expenses but it must be more than the £7.5m that the opposition get. How much does the sitting government get from Public funds and are they included in donation totals?
Can you help @Rob7Lee ?
I think you are right that far too many people go to university, it was a laudable aim to increase attendance but just not thought through. It has happened at the same time that we as a nation have cut back on vocational training and in work training like apprenticeships. We have also thrown out a number of checks and balances that ensured that trades people are qualified in what they do (and at the same time reduced inspectors).We have also implied that to not get a degree would be a failure.
This has led to a reduction of people getting trade training (or proper trade training) and people who are clever but perhaps not suitable for academic rigor being pushed into degree courses when they should be doing something vocational and I would include stuff that would lead into engineering qualifications and the like.
The student loan system is not bad per se but it does put poorer people off and only really works if the Government/People compact of work hard and earn the rewards is there for all to see and clearly at the moment it isn't.
In short young people do what they are told and get qualifications, they (or their parents) run up debt, they cant get good work (end up in MacDonald's), can't pay of their student debt (so it costs the same as if we had paid in the first place), become disillusioned and don't become an asset to the country which is what they wanted to be. If you then become a student and see that previous years are not getting good jobs then it does all become a bit pointless.
What I do disagree about what you say is that they waste their time, is there any evidence that this happens (proportionately) any more than it has at any other time? I also think you need to bear in mind how relatively easy it was to get a job in the past, even if you were uneducated. That is not the case now for loads of young people who may have tons to offer but no where to offer it.
We need to do something to motivate our young and encourage them into work or we will cease to be a major world economy. I have seen it happen in Spain where the very best of the not privileged young move abroad to pursue their dreams, when Spain's economy picks up their will be nobody to do the jobs.
You can even see that in England in the north where a lack of regional policy has sucked talent to London (overcrowding and overheating the SE at the same time) and leaving fewer people to create work and wealth in the north thus continuing the cycle.
According to the electoral commission incomes from 2010 - 2015 were:
2015 as I stated
2014
Labour £39.570m
Conservative £37.446m
2013
Labour £33.336m
Conservative £23.352m
2012
Labour £33.024m
Conservative £24.248m
2011
Labour £31.326m
Conservative £23.660m
2010
Labour £36.270m
Conservative £43.143m
Totals 2010 - 2015 BDI
Labour £222.679m
Conservative £193.736m
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-parties-annual-accounts/details-of-accounts
The Tory's do get a lot of private donations, not sure why that is either a) an issue or b) a surprise, Labour get a lot of donations from Unions, so what?
I don't think any conservative donator gives a 5th of what Unite give Labour. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that although were I a member of a Union who gave money to a political party that I didn't agree with not sure I'd be happy about that as your hands are largely tied on what they give. At least in the main the Tory donators are giving their own money.
So to class it as one big donation is misleading. It is made up of lots and lots of miniscule donations by ordinary workers. Unions don't make profits by exploiting workers for profit or by taking actions that cause huge environmental damage, or sell weapons, or by selling adspace through their fake news outlets, unlike some large Tory donors and backers. Unions cease to exist once their members stop funding them.
It is one big donation from one union, but of course that union received it's money from thousands of members. The link I gave goes back to 2002, it's only totals though, in rounded numbers:
2002, Labour 21m Conservative £10m
2003, Labour 26m Conservative £14m
2004, Labour 29m Conservative £20m
2005, Labour 35m Conservative £24m
2006, Labour 26m Conservative £31m
2007, Labour 32m Conservative £33m
2008, Labour 34m Conservative £32m
2009, Labour 27m Conservative £42m
So some years Tories more but overall Labour considerably more 2002 - 2015 (or even 02 - 10)........
I could leave @Cordoban Addick, but I believe in workers rights, fairness and collective representation. Just think £160 a year is a bit toppy for that, and I belong to a union for those reasons and not to give handouts in the millions to political parties.
Plus all unions with a 'political fund' (and that's not all of them) are required to hold a membership ballot every 5 years to decide whether to keep the 'political fund' or not.
I have also always been OK with the political levy even though I have rarely voted Labour as I think it is good to have at least one party that is meant to have your back with regards to employment law.
That probably would have been severely tested in the latter years of Blair but I was living abroad.
short money recieved
2001/02 3,439,066.23
2002/03 3,459,536.50
2003/04 3,566,927.49
2004/05 3,666,885.49
2005/06 (3) 4,206,057.88
2006/07 4,343,068.75
2007/08 4,534,000.79
2008/09 4,715,453.55
2009/10 4,757,906.12
sorry can't format it properly
Some are tipping it to go past one million. That would be about 8% of their vote.
There was a widely held perspective that Corbyn was unelectable. That has changed now. Unlike Brexit and the Conservatives, Labour are addressing the concerns of the ordinary voter with solutions not rhetoric.
The Tories will be consumed by leadership changes and Brexit until they finally keel over in a year or two. That's how they will change.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
Anyone that fails to get a C at 'A' level these days (where they have dumbed-down the exams) is doing what my IT lecturer at university would call 'Trying to fail'. As there are places for students with Ds and Es I, personally, think it suggests that you don't have to be interested in working or studying to get in. It just follows, logically, that these people will not put as much effort in when they get there.
However, I fully admit that this is not much more than guess work from me. A quick Google search suggests that there is some differing opinion about the correlation between 'A' level grades and degree results so maybe my logic is nothing more that a wild stab in the dark.
I still think Conservative have less to do to win the next election compared to Labour. It's hard to see Labour improving next time around on their actual campaign as it was very good and it's hard to see Conservatives doing a lot worse (famous last words!).
@cabbles not sure where you live or what you do/earn, but yes London has become stupidly expensive unlike anywhere else in the country even when you take into account regional salaries. Particularly in the rental market more than the owners market (as although yes it's still expensive extremely low interest rates have meant the average mortgage payment as a % of income is probably not a lot different to 25 years ago).
I think London Weighting in a lot of jobs (particularly public sector for Teachers as an example) should be a lot higher.
I know many teachers who have moved away from London as the salary differential v's cost of living means they can have a much better standard of living out of London.
A teacher on the upper scale in an outer London Borough gross's roughly £42k, a teacher not in London or Fringe (so lets pick Norfolk) gross's £38k, only 4k difference so circa £200-£225 a month less in take home pay. When you take into account a 3 bed semi in say Eltham is £500k and a 3 bed semi in Norfolk can be £250k.
The differential should be a lot more then £4k and for these types of jobs there should be more regional variances, not sure if nursing pay scales are similar?
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
The Lib Dems, despite all their PR about the Tories shafting them in coalition, promised, in 2010, to scrap student loans. Fast forward to 2015 and the electorate remembered that they did nothing of the sort when they were 'in Government'.
It's like when your friends tell you that if they win the lottery they will buy you a house. None of them make bold statements like they when they are holding a winning ticket or a £2m cheque.
Last 3 labour wins;
1997 43.2% of the Vote
2001 40.7% of the Vote
2005 35.2% of the Vote
and 2017 40% of the vote
So he was only higher than 2005 where Lib Dems got 22% of the vote.
Conservatives
2017 - 42.4% of the vote
2015 - 36.9% of the vote
2010 - 36.1% of the vote
1992 - 42.2% of the vote
So 2017 was the most successful of the last 4 wins
Property as an investment needs to end. I have a German friend who says that property ownership is much rarer than here because the local authorities are much bigger player in the property markets and rents are driven down.
Renting here is a mug's game - unless you're in social housing, you're effectively paying off the landlord's mortgage, plus interest, plus admin fees, plus the profit margin.