Best Of

It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.

The plates are shifting.

If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.

They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.

Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.

Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.

No, it is not.

Lump of labour is a fallacy.

That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.

The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.

I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.

However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.

We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.

One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.

Because that is not meaningful.

A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.

It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.

A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.

You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.

There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.

4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.

1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.

High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.

Surely that implies lots on >95% mortgages, which I thought was a rarity these days.

It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.

The plates are shifting.

If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.

They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.

Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.

Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.

No, it is not.

Lump of labour is a fallacy.

That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.

The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.

I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.

However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.

Do you mean you would make it virtually impossible for a foreign national to stay in the UK long term? Making it virtually impossible for them to come would destroy the tourist industry, destroy the higher education sector and put a severe dampener on the Commonwealth Games in a few months’ time.

Yes - I'm only talking about immigration, I'm not suggesting banning tourists. In practical terms, I'd make it really difficult to come for more than say 90 days, probably via really tough salary rules, with none of the ridiculous "shortage occupation" exemptions.

It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.

The plates are shifting.

If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.

They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.

Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.

Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.

No, it is not.

Lump of labour is a fallacy.

That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.

The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.

I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.

However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.

We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.

One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.

Because that is not meaningful.

A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.

It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.

It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.

The plates are shifting.

If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.

They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.

Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.

Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.

No, it is not.

Lump of labour is a fallacy.

That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.

The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.

I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.

However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.

Do you mean you would make it virtually impossible for a foreign national to stay in the UK long term? Making it virtually impossible for them to come would destroy the tourist industry, destroy the higher education sector and put a severe dampener on the Commonwealth Games in a few months’ time.

Yes - I'm only talking about immigration, I'm not suggesting banning tourists. In practical terms, I'd make it really difficult to come for more than say 90 days, probably via really tough salary rules, with none of the ridiculous "shortage occupation" exemptions.

Sounds like a great plan to crash the economy.

It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.

The plates are shifting.

If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.

They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.

Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.

Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.

No, it is not.

Lump of labour is a fallacy.

That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.

The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.

I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.

However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.

We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.

One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.

Because that is not meaningful.

A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.

It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.

A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.

The London "house" price fall is mostly a flat price fall because people are scared (correctly but perhaps overly) by leasehold issues and rising service charges. Houses here are still pretty much unaffordable here to those without already owning or in the top few per cent of jobs.

It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.

The plates are shifting.

If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.

They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.

Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.

Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.

No, it is not.

Lump of labour is a fallacy.

That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.

The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.

I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.

However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.

Do you mean you would make it virtually impossible for a foreign national to stay in the UK long term? Making it virtually impossible for them to come would destroy the tourist industry, destroy the higher education sector and put a severe dampener on the Commonwealth Games in a few months’ time.

Yes - I'm only talking about immigration, I'm not suggesting banning tourists. In practical terms, I'd make it really difficult to come for more than say 90 days, probably via really tough salary rules, with none of the ridiculous "shortage occupation" exemptions.

If you can't come for more than 90 days, then that means no overseas students, which means the universities go bust and a big hit to our balance of payments.

Good idea?

"Tories to stop criminals spending benefits on alcohol
Pre-loaded ‘ration cards’ will prevent those with convictions linked to drink, gambling or drugs from funding their habits" (£)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/31/tories-to-stop-criminals-spending-benefits-on-alcohol/

Nope. Ultimately, money's fungible. Need to stop the addiction(s) otherwise this is pointless.

Also a slippery slope to spending money on "approved" things which is just not a sensible way of dealing with charity/benefits.

I'm not sure that's true.

Nobody is more aware of the laziness and corruption of the lower classes than me, but empirically, the proposal could show positive results.

In America, government assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/aka food stamps) is doled out in roughly the way that the Conservatives are proposing, and studies generally show low, usually very low, levels of abuse, at any rate for a government program.

For example, this study from the University of Chicago Becker Friedman Institute found that cash assistance (like SSI) caused a 20-30% increase in emergency department visits for drug and alcohol use. By contrast, SNAP benefits, which are doled out electronically did not result in any increase in substance-related hospital visits.

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Paternalistic-Social-Assistance-Evidence-and-Implications-from-Cash-vs.-In-Kind-Transfers.pdf

And again a National Center for Biotechnology Information study claimed that rather than funding drug or alcohol habits, the expansion of SNAP and the removal of drug-related eligibility bans actually correlate with reduced rates of substance use disorders and improved access to addiction treatments.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7779750/

Finally, according to the Brookings Institution, the majority of SNAP dollars are spent on staple goods, with the overall spending patterns of recipients closely mirroring those of non-recipients.

So rather than making assumptions about the habits of the great unwashed, it's generally better to look at what actually happens.

And the evidence is that this is a policy that could conceivably work, depending on how it's implemented.

What's the baseline though? Presumably benefits recipients already spend roughly in line with their non-benefits peers.

So I get given a voucher worth £100 - that is usable by others.

I would be sold for £80-90 and the alcoholic will use that to get their alcohol.

I'm sorry but have these people ever lived in the real world

Make it available thru Apple/Google pay via face ID

Certainly - that will be £500m to develop the app (got to give your mates money somehow).

Good idea?

"Tories to stop criminals spending benefits on alcohol
Pre-loaded ‘ration cards’ will prevent those with convictions linked to drink, gambling or drugs from funding their habits" (£)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/31/tories-to-stop-criminals-spending-benefits-on-alcohol/

Nope. Ultimately, money's fungible. Need to stop the addiction(s) otherwise this is pointless.

Also a slippery slope to spending money on "approved" things which is just not a sensible way of dealing with charity/benefits.

I'm not sure that's true.

Nobody is more aware of the laziness and corruption of the lower classes than me, but empirically, the proposal could show positive results.

In America, government assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/aka food stamps) is doled out in roughly the way that the Conservatives are proposing, and studies generally show low, usually very low, levels of abuse, at any rate for a government program.

For example, this study from the University of Chicago Becker Friedman Institute found that cash assistance (like SSI) caused a 20-30% increase in emergency department visits for drug and alcohol use. By contrast, SNAP benefits, which are doled out electronically did not result in any increase in substance-related hospital visits.

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Paternalistic-Social-Assistance-Evidence-and-Implications-from-Cash-vs.-In-Kind-Transfers.pdf

And again a National Center for Biotechnology Information study claimed that rather than funding drug or alcohol habits, the expansion of SNAP and the removal of drug-related eligibility bans actually correlate with reduced rates of substance use disorders and improved access to addiction treatments.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7779750/

Finally, according to the Brookings Institution, the majority of SNAP dollars are spent on staple goods, with the overall spending patterns of recipients closely mirroring those of non-recipients.

So rather than making assumptions about the habits of the great unwashed, it's generally better to look at what actually happens.

And the evidence is that this is a policy that could conceivably work, depending on how it's implemented.

What's the baseline though? Presumably benefits recipients already spend roughly in line with their non-benefits peers.

So I get given a voucher worth £100 - that is usable by others.

I would be sold for £80-90 and the alcoholic will use that to get their alcohol.

I'm sorry but have these people ever lived in the real world

Good idea?

"Tories to stop criminals spending benefits on alcohol
Pre-loaded ‘ration cards’ will prevent those with convictions linked to drink, gambling or drugs from funding their habits" (£)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/31/tories-to-stop-criminals-spending-benefits-on-alcohol/

Nope. Ultimately, money's fungible. Need to stop the addiction(s) otherwise this is pointless.

Also a slippery slope to spending money on "approved" things which is just not a sensible way of dealing with charity/benefits.

I'm not sure that's true.

Nobody is more aware of the laziness and corruption of the lower classes than me, but empirically, the proposal could show positive results.

In America, government assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/aka food stamps) is doled out in roughly the way that the Conservatives are proposing, and studies generally show low, usually very low, levels of abuse, at any rate for a government program.

For example, this study from the University of Chicago Becker Friedman Institute found that cash assistance (like SSI) caused a 20-30% increase in emergency department visits for drug and alcohol use. By contrast, SNAP benefits, which are doled out electronically did not result in any increase in substance-related hospital visits.

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Paternalistic-Social-Assistance-Evidence-and-Implications-from-Cash-vs.-In-Kind-Transfers.pdf

And again a National Center for Biotechnology Information study claimed that rather than funding drug or alcohol habits, the expansion of SNAP and the removal of drug-related eligibility bans actually correlate with reduced rates of substance use disorders and improved access to addiction treatments.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7779750/

Finally, according to the Brookings Institution, the majority of SNAP dollars are spent on staple goods, with the overall spending patterns of recipients closely mirroring those of non-recipients.

So rather than making assumptions about the habits of the great unwashed, it's generally better to look at what actually happens.

And the evidence is that this is a policy that could conceivably work, depending on how it's implemented.

What's the baseline though? Presumably benefits recipients already spend roughly in line with their non-benefits peers.

So I get given a voucher worth £100 - that is usable by others.

I would be sold for £80-90 and the alcoholic will use that to get their alcohol.

I'm sorry but have these people ever lived in the real world