The “Great British Dream” is dead. This is by no means solely a British problem, but I think it is probably worse here.
When I talk to 20-somethings, unless their parents are loaded, they have no hope of ever getting on the housing ladder.
Class advancement has utterly collapsed.
University education has become a bizarre fiscal imposition, you can’t *not* do it (because you want a “middle class job”), but you can’t afford to do it, either.
I was born poor and came to this country with nothing, and I regret with all my heart that my journey is now nigh-on impossible.
MEANWHILE,
My top end art gallerist friend has “never been busier” because her wealthy patrons have done so well during Covid and need to diversify their asset base.
A society cannot last forever if the stories it tells itself (work hard and prosper!) are false.
Examine the language you used: "the housing ladder". In what sense could "housing" be a "ladder"? Is it? Should it be?
What do you mean, “could”?
It served well enough for my grandparents, then my parents, and then me.
“Should” is an interesting question, but space does not permit a proper answer.
Ok, let me put it this way.
A ladder is a tool that elevates you from one level to another. The way that PT described people buying a cheap house, then a more expensive one and so on etc doesn't strike me as a "ladder". That strikes me as the levels. The thing that allows you to access the different levels is having more money.
The way in which housing can function as a "ladder" is when you derive wealth from it. I think a lot of people see housing as a way of becoming richer. You buy cheap and you sell dear. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you buy a bigger house because that too will have increased in price.
So housing being a "ladder" I think can work in general sense, but only if housing keeps increasing in value relative to income and a significant proportion of other investment or assets. That is obviously unsustainable in the long run.
Perhaps some people have a different idea of a "ladder", that is, it is a yardstick by which you measure individual wealth as opposed to a means to an end. But I think a lot of people see things the way I described above: a ladder in the snakes-and-ladders sense. A shortcut that some will land on and others simply won't.
You're forgetting that house buying also enables you to convert part of your expenses (rent) into investment and wealth creation. So it does not rely purely on asset value inflation. And if you buy bigger and rent out rooms, you are also creating an entirely new income stream.
London the most religious, but least Christian region of E&W:
London had the lowest percentage of people reporting No religion The percentage of the population who reported No religion ranged from an estimated 29.0% in London to 47.3% in Wales in 2019.
People with a religious affiliation other than Christian accounted for over 25% of London’s population, compared with an estimated 10.6% of the overall population. Around one in seven people in London (14.3%) were Muslim. This percentage is higher than other regions, with the next most common regions being the West Midlands, Yorkshire and The Humber and North West (with 8.6%, 6.6% and 6.3% Muslim, respectively).
The North East, South West, and Wales were the least religiously diverse regions, with over 95% of their populations Christian or with No religion.
No surprise given London is almost 50% non white now and has big Asian populations who are Hindu or Sikh or Muslim and plenty of Muslims from Nigeria etc too. Though those who are Christian in London tend to be more active as London has bucked the trend of declining church attendance again helped by immigration of evangelicals from Africa and Roman Catholics from Eastern Europe and charismatic evangelical Christianity driven by the likes of HTB.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
To answer that you need to know what restrictions have been imposed elsewhere, and when, by France.
The Daily Wail is not going to report comparative restrictions on travelling from Ch to Fr.
Though there's a clear Muppetry of the Macron element here.
Why not email the French Embassy, and report back?
The restrictions come in midnight Friday/Saturday and essentially ban tourism; travel is allowed to visit family, to accompany a spouse/parent/child who is a French citizen or as transit to a main residence elsewhere in the EU. But for all arrivals there is to be a quarantine and test requirement, as well as the PCR test required to be taken within 24 hours of arrival - which will be tough since most PCR test results take longer than that to receive.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
FFS, if the CMO can't even say people should prioritise what is important to them, which is a statement of the bleeding obvious anyway, without many feeling democracy is under threat from unelected bureaucrats then the nation really has become a bunch of snowflakes.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
People, this is your future thanks to the green lobby.
Gas prices are at a near record level again and we are nowhere near a viable, fully scalable alternative that will keep the lights on and our homes warm in winter.
Still, stop drilling for oil and gas and stop further exploration. All good.
When we have five times the wind capacity then wind would still be generating a respectable 12 GW or so on a day like today, and we'd have the excess from previous days stored. If we would build the tidal lagoons, and the mini-nuke reactors too, then our exposure to fluctuations in global fossil fuel prices would be much reduced, perhaps eliminated.
The problem is, this is a fiction. A lovely fiction, and an admirable goal, but still a fiction.
*) "When we have five times the wind capacity". When will that be, even at current build rates? We have 11,000 wind turbines in the UK. Even if we assume we can use larger, more efficient ones, you are still talking about tens of thousands of turbines to be built and deployed. That's the work of at least a decade.
On that one we currently have 10GWp installed offshore, which current projects will treble to 30GWp by 2030, and the Govt are trying to make that quadruple.
The last number I saw was that potential for the UK was 80 GWp.
So 5x in a little over 10 years is not necessarily that much extra.
Personally I would target energy export into Europe as a key future export sector, since we are a decade or more ahead of the rest (Denmark possibly excepted) on offshore wind. And I'd drive development of a new industrial sector and maintenance sector off it. All to replace the oil sector as it continues to wind down.
Suspect that that is another lead that will be pissed away.r
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
They... lost though?
Lost the battle, but Boris has been put on notice by the party.
The “Great British Dream” is dead. This is by no means solely a British problem, but I think it is probably worse here.
When I talk to 20-somethings, unless their parents are loaded, they have no hope of ever getting on the housing ladder.
Class advancement has utterly collapsed.
University education has become a bizarre fiscal imposition, you can’t *not* do it (because you want a “middle class job”), but you can’t afford to do it, either.
I was born poor and came to this country with nothing, and I regret with all my heart that my journey is now nigh-on impossible.
MEANWHILE,
My top end art gallerist friend has “never been busier” because her wealthy patrons have done so well during Covid and need to diversify their asset base.
A society cannot last forever if the stories it tells itself (work hard and prosper!) are false.
Examine the language you used: "the housing ladder". In what sense could "housing" be a "ladder"? Is it? Should it be?
What do you mean, “could”?
It served well enough for my grandparents, then my parents, and then me.
“Should” is an interesting question, but space does not permit a proper answer.
Ok, let me put it this way.
A ladder is a tool that elevates you from one level to another. The way that PT described people buying a cheap house, then a more expensive one and so on etc doesn't strike me as a "ladder". That strikes me as the levels. The thing that allows you to access the different levels is having more money.
The way in which housing can function as a "ladder" is when you derive wealth from it. I think a lot of people see housing as a way of becoming richer. You buy cheap and you sell dear. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you buy a bigger house because that too will have increased in price.
So housing being a "ladder" I think can work in general sense, but only if housing keeps increasing in value relative to income and a significant proportion of other investment or assets. That is obviously unsustainable in the long run.
Perhaps some people have a different idea of a "ladder", that is, it is a yardstick by which you measure individual wealth as opposed to a means to an end. But I think a lot of people see things the way I described above: a ladder in the snakes-and-ladders sense. A shortcut that some will land on and others simply won't.
In the past the point of the ladder is that by getting "your foot on the ladder" (by getting the entry level house while you were young) that would assist you to get onto "the next rung of the ladder" (selling it to get the next and bigger house).
It wasn't about getting richer, it was about getting up the housing ladder.
The problem is inflation. In the 20th Century we had inflation in prices, wages and houses relatively equitably, so houses were a relatively steady ratio to income but by getting on the ladder inflation would inflate your deposit for the next rung of the ladder. You wouldn't be wealthier in real terms (because inflation ate it away) but you'd be able to climb the ladder and be better off.
The problem is that since the turn of the century we had the awful combination of housing inflation but no wage or price inflation. As a result the ladder was pulled away and anyone in a house got a massive wealth bonus (since there's no wage and price inflation) while anyone not on it was royally fucked and told what a great thing it is that there's no inflation anymore while seeing houses inflate out of their reach.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
They... lost though?
They sent a warning shot though that any Tory PM who tried to impose another lockdown would be toppled.
The focus should be on getting people to get their boosters not further restrictions
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
Chris Whitty is just telling people to be cautious, which seems fair?
The question is why is Dorries on Twitter spouting shite. Isn’t she supposed to be a Cabinet Minister?
The real dilemma for the Chancellor is how to target help to those small businesses who really need it like @Cyclefree daughter while not subsidising those with shareholders who should take the hit rather than the taxpayer
Every business has shareholders Big G.
It is quite obvious what Big G meant.
My business (a single proprietor LLC) has no shareholders. So Topping is wrong, plain and simple. Of course, I have stakeholders, but not shareholders.
The stakeholders or members in many regards look for all the world like shareholders, save for an ability to, er, limit liability.
But you used the word shareholder.
They are owners of the LLC and hence shareholders is appropriate to use.
No it is not. While they are owners, there are no shares to own, and hence no shareholder (which per business would be singular in any case). Why can't you simply admit you were wrong in your word choice.
Owners = shareholders
shareholders hold shares and are owners of corporations with a share structure. owners of corporations without shares are not shareholders. you were petty point scoring and got egg on your face but are too little to admit it
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
They... lost though?
They sent a warning shot though that any Tory PM who tried to impose another lockdown would be toppled.
The focus should be on getting people to get their boosters not further restrictions
We. Are. In. Total. Agreement.
*goes to sit down, perhaps alcohol will be involved*
The “Great British Dream” is dead. This is by no means solely a British problem, but I think it is probably worse here.
When I talk to 20-somethings, unless their parents are loaded, they have no hope of ever getting on the housing ladder.
Class advancement has utterly collapsed.
University education has become a bizarre fiscal imposition, you can’t *not* do it (because you want a “middle class job”), but you can’t afford to do it, either.
I was born poor and came to this country with nothing, and I regret with all my heart that my journey is now nigh-on impossible.
MEANWHILE,
My top end art gallerist friend has “never been busier” because her wealthy patrons have done so well during Covid and need to diversify their asset base.
A society cannot last forever if the stories it tells itself (work hard and prosper!) are false.
Examine the language you used: "the housing ladder". In what sense could "housing" be a "ladder"? Is it? Should it be?
What do you mean, “could”?
It served well enough for my grandparents, then my parents, and then me.
“Should” is an interesting question, but space does not permit a proper answer.
Ok, let me put it this way.
A ladder is a tool that elevates you from one level to another. The way that PT described people buying a cheap house, then a more expensive one and so on etc doesn't strike me as a "ladder". That strikes me as the levels. The thing that allows you to access the different levels is having more money.
The way in which housing can function as a "ladder" is when you derive wealth from it. I think a lot of people see housing as a way of becoming richer. You buy cheap and you sell dear. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you buy a bigger house because that too will have increased in price.
So housing being a "ladder" I think can work in general sense, but only if housing keeps increasing in value relative to income and a significant proportion of other investment or assets. That is obviously unsustainable in the long run.
Perhaps some people have a different idea of a "ladder", that is, it is a yardstick by which you measure individual wealth as opposed to a means to an end. But I think a lot of people see things the way I described above: a ladder in the snakes-and-ladders sense. A shortcut that some will land on and others simply won't.
You're forgetting that house buying also enables you to convert part of your expenses (rent) into investment and wealth creation. So it does not rely purely on asset value inflation. And if you buy bigger and rent out rooms, you are also creating an entirely new income stream.
I am not "forgetting" that at all. The fact that you're storing some of your income in an asset is fine, but if house prices are outstripping wages, then it's a bubble. That's the point. Ladder = bubble in the first sense I described. Wanting to own a home is in most cases rational. Wanting it to be a source of increased wealth in and of itself (we aren't talking about rental income which you pay for in obligations) is irrational but a very commonly held irrationality.
The “Great British Dream” is dead. This is by no means solely a British problem, but I think it is probably worse here.
When I talk to 20-somethings, unless their parents are loaded, they have no hope of ever getting on the housing ladder.
Class advancement has utterly collapsed.
University education has become a bizarre fiscal imposition, you can’t *not* do it (because you want a “middle class job”), but you can’t afford to do it, either.
I was born poor and came to this country with nothing, and I regret with all my heart that my journey is now nigh-on impossible.
MEANWHILE,
My top end art gallerist friend has “never been busier” because her wealthy patrons have done so well during Covid and need to diversify their asset base.
A society cannot last forever if the stories it tells itself (work hard and prosper!) are false.
Examine the language you used: "the housing ladder". In what sense could "housing" be a "ladder"? Is it? Should it be?
What do you mean, “could”?
It served well enough for my grandparents, then my parents, and then me.
“Should” is an interesting question, but space does not permit a proper answer.
Ok, let me put it this way.
A ladder is a tool that elevates you from one level to another. The way that PT described people buying a cheap house, then a more expensive one and so on etc doesn't strike me as a "ladder". That strikes me as the levels. The thing that allows you to access the different levels is having more money.
The way in which housing can function as a "ladder" is when you derive wealth from it. I think a lot of people see housing as a way of becoming richer. You buy cheap and you sell dear. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you buy a bigger house because that too will have increased in price.
So housing being a "ladder" I think can work in general sense, but only if housing keeps increasing in value relative to income and a significant proportion of other investment or assets. That is obviously unsustainable in the long run.
Perhaps some people have a different idea of a "ladder", that is, it is a yardstick by which you measure individual wealth as opposed to a means to an end. But I think a lot of people see things the way I described above: a ladder in the snakes-and-ladders sense. A shortcut that some will land on and others simply won't.
You're forgetting that house buying also enables you to convert part of your expenses (rent) into investment and wealth creation. So it does not rely purely on asset value inflation. And if you buy bigger and rent out rooms, you are also creating an entirely new income stream.
This is a common view, but it is a stretch of "enables" for me. It is perfectly possible to rent and invest in non housing assets, which in turn create new dividend income streams.
Which is better depends on the expected returns of housing vs non housing assets, and the cost of renting vs purchase and the non financial benefits of owning mostly security of tenure and not having to deal with shit landlords.
For most of our lifetimes in the UK owning has been clearly the better choice but that is not universally true and a comparison calculation should be made rather than a flawed assumption that owning enables investment and renting does not.
I would argue in central London at least renting is better overall value than owning at current prices.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
Chris Whitty is just telling people to be cautious, which seems fair?
The question is why is Dorries on Twitter spouting shite. Isn’t she supposed to be a Cabinet Minister?
The “Great British Dream” is dead. This is by no means solely a British problem, but I think it is probably worse here.
When I talk to 20-somethings, unless their parents are loaded, they have no hope of ever getting on the housing ladder.
Class advancement has utterly collapsed.
University education has become a bizarre fiscal imposition, you can’t *not* do it (because you want a “middle class job”), but you can’t afford to do it, either.
I was born poor and came to this country with nothing, and I regret with all my heart that my journey is now nigh-on impossible.
MEANWHILE,
My top end art gallerist friend has “never been busier” because her wealthy patrons have done so well during Covid and need to diversify their asset base.
A society cannot last forever if the stories it tells itself (work hard and prosper!) are false.
Examine the language you used: "the housing ladder". In what sense could "housing" be a "ladder"? Is it? Should it be?
What do you mean, “could”?
It served well enough for my grandparents, then my parents, and then me.
“Should” is an interesting question, but space does not permit a proper answer.
Ok, let me put it this way.
A ladder is a tool that elevates you from one level to another. The way that PT described people buying a cheap house, then a more expensive one and so on etc doesn't strike me as a "ladder". That strikes me as the levels. The thing that allows you to access the different levels is having more money.
The way in which housing can function as a "ladder" is when you derive wealth from it. I think a lot of people see housing as a way of becoming richer. You buy cheap and you sell dear. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you buy a bigger house because that too will have increased in price.
So housing being a "ladder" I think can work in general sense, but only if housing keeps increasing in value relative to income and a significant proportion of other investment or assets. That is obviously unsustainable in the long run.
Perhaps some people have a different idea of a "ladder", that is, it is a yardstick by which you measure individual wealth as opposed to a means to an end. But I think a lot of people see things the way I described above: a ladder in the snakes-and-ladders sense. A shortcut that some will land on and others simply won't.
You're forgetting that house buying also enables you to convert part of your expenses (rent) into investment and wealth creation. So it does not rely purely on asset value inflation. And if you buy bigger and rent out rooms, you are also creating an entirely new income stream.
I am not "forgetting" that at all. The fact that you're storing some of your income in as asset is fine, but if house prices are outstripping wages, then it's a bubble. That's the point. Ladder = bubble in the first sense I described. Wanting to own a home is in most cases rational. Wanting it to be a source of increased wealth in and of itself (we aren't talking about rental income which you pay for in obligations) is irrational but a very commonly held irrationality.
The ladder has been pulled away.
The metaphor worked in the past. It wasn't a bubble when we had inflation in wages and prices to match inflation in houses.
We need a return of inflation in wages being at least as high or higher than inflation in houses. And we need to reverse the damage of the past two decades of inflation.
Seeing wealthy people with houses crying crocodile tears about inflation because wages are going up now, when they've been minting inflation for the past twenty years, is amusing.
London the most religious, but least Christian region of E&W:
London had the lowest percentage of people reporting No religion The percentage of the population who reported No religion ranged from an estimated 29.0% in London to 47.3% in Wales in 2019.
People with a religious affiliation other than Christian accounted for over 25% of London’s population, compared with an estimated 10.6% of the overall population. Around one in seven people in London (14.3%) were Muslim. This percentage is higher than other regions, with the next most common regions being the West Midlands, Yorkshire and The Humber and North West (with 8.6%, 6.6% and 6.3% Muslim, respectively).
The North East, South West, and Wales were the least religiously diverse regions, with over 95% of their populations Christian or with No religion.
No surprise given London is almost 50% non white now and has big Asian populations who are Hindu or Sikh or Muslim and plenty of Muslims from Nigeria etc too. Though those who are Christian in London tend to be more active as London has bucked the trend of declining church attendance again helped by immigration of evangelicals from Africa and Roman Catholics from Eastern Europe and charismatic evangelical Christianity driven by the likes of HTB.
Immigration however is much slower in the North East, SW and Wales which have lower gdp and few really big cities than it is to London and the SE.
Huh?
"non-white" = non-Christian?
No; read the post. He says the opposite.
Read the post??? Are you kidding me.
I thought, on a skim read, that he was saying that because people are non-white they wouldn't be Christian.
Entirely possible that that is not what he meant.
The majority of the Asian population are non Christian but still religious about half the African population are non Christian but still religious.
That is just a fact. However non white Christians in the UK eg Pentecostal Africans tend to be more regular church attenders than the average white Briton
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
They... lost though?
They sent a warning shot though that any Tory PM who tried to impose another lockdown would be toppled.
The focus should be on getting people to get their boosters not further restrictions
We. Are. In. Total. Agreement.
*goes to sit down, perhaps alcohol will be involved*
Same here, it's 2pm somewhere in the world right?!
Anything below Con 45 and he is in big, big trouble. The only time their vote has dipped below that in this constituency at a general election was in 1997, when it was 40% (coincidentally,the same as in the by-election of 1961).
If the Lib Dems win, he's finished.
Only two predictions, neither with much confidence,
The Tories will win NS.
That result will buy Boris time until sometime in January.
I also fancy the Cons to hold on in NS but, regardless, I don't see Johnson going anytime soon. You can get 1.75 on him still to be PM at the next Tory Party Conf - that's real value imo.
What is the definition of at - when the conference begins or when it ends?
I ask because one plausible scenario is that Boris goes after ensuring the vote takes him past August.
The rules say PM on the first day of the conference.
The “Great British Dream” is dead. This is by no means solely a British problem, but I think it is probably worse here.
When I talk to 20-somethings, unless their parents are loaded, they have no hope of ever getting on the housing ladder.
Class advancement has utterly collapsed.
University education has become a bizarre fiscal imposition, you can’t *not* do it (because you want a “middle class job”), but you can’t afford to do it, either.
I was born poor and came to this country with nothing, and I regret with all my heart that my journey is now nigh-on impossible.
MEANWHILE,
My top end art gallerist friend has “never been busier” because her wealthy patrons have done so well during Covid and need to diversify their asset base.
A society cannot last forever if the stories it tells itself (work hard and prosper!) are false.
Examine the language you used: "the housing ladder". In what sense could "housing" be a "ladder"? Is it? Should it be?
What do you mean, “could”?
It served well enough for my grandparents, then my parents, and then me.
“Should” is an interesting question, but space does not permit a proper answer.
Ok, let me put it this way.
A ladder is a tool that elevates you from one level to another. The way that PT described people buying a cheap house, then a more expensive one and so on etc doesn't strike me as a "ladder". That strikes me as the levels. The thing that allows you to access the different levels is having more money.
The way in which housing can function as a "ladder" is when you derive wealth from it. I think a lot of people see housing as a way of becoming richer. You buy cheap and you sell dear. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you buy a bigger house because that too will have increased in price.
So housing being a "ladder" I think can work in general sense, but only if housing keeps increasing in value relative to income and a significant proportion of other investment or assets. That is obviously unsustainable in the long run.
Perhaps some people have a different idea of a "ladder", that is, it is a yardstick by which you measure individual wealth as opposed to a means to an end. But I think a lot of people see things the way I described above: a ladder in the snakes-and-ladders sense. A shortcut that some will land on and others simply won't.
You're forgetting that house buying also enables you to convert part of your expenses (rent) into investment and wealth creation. So it does not rely purely on asset value inflation. And if you buy bigger and rent out rooms, you are also creating an entirely new income stream.
I am not "forgetting" that at all. The fact that you're storing some of your income in an asset is fine, but if house prices are outstripping wages, then it's a bubble. That's the point. Ladder = bubble in the first sense I described. Wanting to own a home is in most cases rational. Wanting it to be a source of increased wealth in and of itself (we aren't talking about rental income which you pay for in obligations) is irrational but a very commonly held irrationality.
Well it's not irrational, because it happens. But I agree that in an ideal world it shouldn't - house prices should be a) more affordable and b) should increase at exactly the level of inflation - no more.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
Chris Whitty is just telling people to be cautious, which seems fair?
The question is why is Dorries on Twitter spouting shite. Isn’t she supposed to be a Cabinet Minister?
I think Chris Whitty has to be bound to a policy decision and then sell the policy, if he doesn't agree then he's free to resign.
As for Dorries and Twitter, well Dave was always right about the latter. The world would be a better place if it ceased to exist.
So, if the Mirror is right the extremely rich Rishi Sunak is in California on business; the state where he met his wife and where he, apparently, owns a home in Santa Monica and has lots of friends there. I'm not sure why this business trip wasn't public knowledge, but it clearly wasn't. Wonder why.
Could be a problem for Sunak. Whatever one's view of Omicron and what should be done, we are in the middle of another Covid crisis and it's clearly going to have major economic implications for lots of businesses. But the man to decide whether to lend support to hospitality businesses (which are going to lose loads of money whether or not more restrictions are put in place) is on a jolly business trip in California. I'll bet Cyclefree is livid.
Sunak has relatives there. Part of his wife's family are Californian.
And Cyclefree is always livid about something, in any case.
I've just got home.
My Daughter's business is taking 40% of the revenue she was taking in November let alone December. She is beyond depressed.
She normally closes for the first 2 weeks of January. Unless support is forthcoming, as other countries faced with this variant have provided, she will not be reopening. There is no point.
A business which survived, was viable, increased its turnover and was profitable will disappear because it simply cannot survive the loss of Xmas business without support. So all the support that was given before will have been for nothing.
Jobs lost. Local suppliers and breweries lose another customer and a village loses a venue. The government loses the tax revenues. What are the chances of the owner finding a buyer or tenant in this sort of environment? And yet the government is proposing to spend £21 million in the area to increase its attractiveness as a tourist destination. Where are people supposed to eat and stay when all the local venues have closed?
She is young. She is entrepreneurial and tough. But she looks utterly beaten and abandoned. It breaks my heart. She will not be the only one who feels like this. She and her generation are this country's future and this government is treating them like shit.
I expect better. At least I used to. Not any more.
More than livid I am utterly contemptuous of people like you who are so dismissive of what is happening to the young. And even more contemptuous of people like Sunak, cosseted by their money, who have no clue at the damage they are doing.
But I will wait and when I have the opportunity I will get my own back at the ballot box. I will not be the only one.
This country has been shafting the young for years. It was similar under Labour - they pulled up many ladders behind them: free education, good pensions, etc. The Millennials et al have been used as a human bank account by the older generations to feather-bed their existence and protect their inheritances.
It is why I have encouraged my kids to use their dual nationality to seek work overseas. The UK was a great country once and being British was something you could take pride in. Nowadays it is a joke with a comedy govt which is mapping the way to becoming a shabby, insular backwater.
Some excellent points - I think you are right about the young being systematically shxfted - the interest rate on the govt student loan scheme is a scandal is an excellent example, meanwhile the wealthy over 60s remain absolutely steadfast in their grip on political power - one of the great political shifts in the 21C has been the systematic hoovering up of the grey vote by the Conservatives in England - its given us BREXIT, a sex-crazed liar as PM, a series of culture wars and an inflated sense of national importance that will culminate in disaster at some point. I do think the Blues will edge it (but will watch with an enthusiasm for a byelection I've not had in years)
That RPI plus 3% on Student Loans is just cruel.
I was talking to my neighbour. She is in her 20's, a teaching assistant, doing a teaching degree at night school. So, about the most sensible and cost effective way of doing a degree. Will leave with 18k of debt. We worked out that it could well be cheaper for her to get a loan from the bank upon graduation then pay it off over 5 years when she gets a teaching job (should be about 3% interest, if the current bank interest rates are sustained), than stay with the student loans company.
Aside from vocational degrees such as the above; University education is for the wealthy only. An extension of private school; but the student loans system enables the poor and naive to be exploited under the guise of 'access'.
Commercial bank offering unsecured personal loan for 3%?
Colour me sceptical.
I've taken out unsecured loans at this rate. Admittedly not recently though.
Another option is mortgage equity withdrawal, that could bring the rate down to sub 2%, dependent on personal circumstances. Or just borrow the money off a wealthy relative and pay it back at 1-2%; win win as the savings rate is hopeless.
What was the politicos rationale for the interest rate being so high? If you get a high flying job and reach six figures in your 20s, you pay it off early. The bigger chunk will presumably never pay it off. But there will be plenty in the middle who do pay it off but take most of their working life to do so.
Was it purely so they could privatise the loan book with as small a discount as possible? Poor form if so.
It's really, really hard to repay the student loan (deliberately so). I've just done the calculation, assuming CPI at 2% (increasing the repayment threshold each year), RPI at 3% (so the interest is 6% each year) for someone who starts earning at £25,000 and receives a 4% pay rise every year. They never pay back the £27,000 borrowed. Not only that, they never reduce the amount of debt owed. They make repayments of more than £28,000, but the debt outstanding grows every year to reach nearly £120,000 when it is written off.
If you increase the average pay rise to 5% every year, then in the final year the student sees the first drop in their outstanding debt, before the remaining £81,000 or so is written off. They will have paid more than £51,000.
You have to increase the average pay rise each year to 7% to achieve repayment (in the penultimate year) with a total of about £96,000 repaid. The salary at this year is £95,473 in inflation-adjusted terms (£166k nominal). This is far above the middle.
It can't be emphasised enough that you are not meant to pay this debt off. This is why Martin Lewis advises people that they would be simply throwing their money away to use a lump sum to repay some of the principal amount outstanding. It would be a fundamental change to the system to make repayment reasonably achievable. Maybe it would be a vote winner in the Home Counties, where more people would have a decent chance of clearing the debt, and reducing the amount if interest they pay. It would make no difference to most other people.
And who gets a pay rise anymore? All the time I've been in the public sector, it has been frozen at less than 1%. In my case, I did some calculations and worked out that inflation has eroded gains even in the context of multiple promotions. If you add on to that the problem of progressive taxation once you start earning well (of which the post 2012 student loan situation is a feature), it becomes prohibitively difficult to ever build up wealth through employment. I've said on here that people need to look at alternatives to traditional employment if they want to build up wealth and that is still very true, and entirely a product of bad government policy.
In planning, most local councils now have to take on contractors because it's simply not worth doing the job for the money they get paid. Mrs Eek was on £27,000 or so when she left planning in 2004, returning in 2018 (if you don't believe in God or freak events the story of how she returned is implausible). She is now on £35,000 doing a more senior job. No one is going to work for that money especially down south.
As for student loans - as I pointed out to twin B, unless you can pay the entire debt off there is zero point paying any of it of. The money we saved for her will eventually be a housing deposit and (if I can afford it) a monthly sub to cover some of her repayment costs.
I live in the south east. The reality is that there just aren't that many jobs that pay above the mid 20k range. Even once you ascend past that point, the taxation plus student loan starts to hit badly.
I started in the public sector in 2007 at 31k in an entry level role, and got to 49k in 2020, in a role touted as the pinnacle of my profession. It often involved working 6 days a week, for 12 hours a day, making extremely difficult decisions with little support, for which I will essentially be liable for the rest of my life, in organisations that are increasingly subject to political interference on staffing matters; and have a habit of hanging former staff out to dry.
In the end, I came to conclude that I was being taken for a fool by the government, and that there are far easier ways to make £3000 per month after tax. That has turned out to be true.
Wait until you come to the next realisation which is that the government would really rather you didn’t make your money via salary. You will be taxed heavily for doing so.
Yeah, well of course I thought about that. But without going in to too much detail, a lot can be gained in terms of reducing the amount of tax you pay, completely lawfully, by switching to multiple income streams - contacting, self employment etc. And I am sure that many people on here will be doing the same thing. Having seen how Council's go through brutal restructures making staff redundant with only tokenistic redundancy packages, I have also come to conclude that you probably end up with more job security through the greater flexibility and adaptability that you gain by working this way.
The real dilemma for the Chancellor is how to target help to those small businesses who really need it like @Cyclefree daughter while not subsidising those with shareholders who should take the hit rather than the taxpayer
Every business has shareholders Big G.
It is quite obvious what Big G meant.
My business (a single proprietor LLC) has no shareholders. So Topping is wrong, plain and simple. Of course, I have stakeholders, but not shareholders.
The stakeholders or members in many regards look for all the world like shareholders, save for an ability to, er, limit liability.
But you used the word shareholder.
They are owners of the LLC and hence shareholders is appropriate to use.
No it is not. While they are owners, there are no shares to own, and hence no shareholder (which per business would be singular in any case). Why can't you simply admit you were wrong in your word choice.
Owners = shareholders
shareholders hold shares and are owners of corporations with a share structure. owners of corporations without shares are not shareholders. you were petty point scoring and got egg on your face but are too little to admit it
What are you talking about. Owners = shareholders. Shareholders means owners of a company or a corporation or an LLC. If you and a mate own the LLC in equal measure how much each of the LLC do you own?
Googling of the term "property ladder" fell away around the global financial crisis and hasn't returned. Not sure what conclusions you can derive from that. Perhaps the end of capitalism?
So, if the Mirror is right the extremely rich Rishi Sunak is in California on business; the state where he met his wife and where he, apparently, owns a home in Santa Monica and has lots of friends there. I'm not sure why this business trip wasn't public knowledge, but it clearly wasn't. Wonder why.
Could be a problem for Sunak. Whatever one's view of Omicron and what should be done, we are in the middle of another Covid crisis and it's clearly going to have major economic implications for lots of businesses. But the man to decide whether to lend support to hospitality businesses (which are going to lose loads of money whether or not more restrictions are put in place) is on a jolly business trip in California. I'll bet Cyclefree is livid.
Sunak has relatives there. Part of his wife's family are Californian.
And Cyclefree is always livid about something, in any case.
I've just got home.
My Daughter's business is taking 40% of the revenue she was taking in November let alone December. She is beyond depressed.
She normally closes for the first 2 weeks of January. Unless support is forthcoming, as other countries faced with this variant have provided, she will not be reopening. There is no point.
A business which survived, was viable, increased its turnover and was profitable will disappear because it simply cannot survive the loss of Xmas business without support. So all the support that was given before will have been for nothing.
Jobs lost. Local suppliers and breweries lose another customer and a village loses a venue. The government loses the tax revenues. What are the chances of the owner finding a buyer or tenant in this sort of environment? And yet the government is proposing to spend £21 million in the area to increase its attractiveness as a tourist destination. Where are people supposed to eat and stay when all the local venues have closed?
She is young. She is entrepreneurial and tough. But she looks utterly beaten and abandoned. It breaks my heart. She will not be the only one who feels like this. She and her generation are this country's future and this government is treating them like shit.
I expect better. At least I used to. Not any more.
More than livid I am utterly contemptuous of people like you who are so dismissive of what is happening to the young. And even more contemptuous of people like Sunak, cosseted by their money, who have no clue at the damage they are doing.
But I will wait and when I have the opportunity I will get my own back at the ballot box. I will not be the only one.
This country has been shafting the young for years. It was similar under Labour - they pulled up many ladders behind them: free education, good pensions, etc. The Millennials et al have been used as a human bank account by the older generations to feather-bed their existence and protect their inheritances.
It is why I have encouraged my kids to use their dual nationality to seek work overseas. The UK was a great country once and being British was something you could take pride in. Nowadays it is a joke with a comedy govt which is mapping the way to becoming a shabby, insular backwater.
Some excellent points - I think you are right about the young being systematically shxfted - the interest rate on the govt student loan scheme is a scandal is an excellent example, meanwhile the wealthy over 60s remain absolutely steadfast in their grip on political power - one of the great political shifts in the 21C has been the systematic hoovering up of the grey vote by the Conservatives in England - its given us BREXIT, a sex-crazed liar as PM, a series of culture wars and an inflated sense of national importance that will culminate in disaster at some point. I do think the Blues will edge it (but will watch with an enthusiasm for a byelection I've not had in years)
That RPI plus 3% on Student Loans is just cruel.
I was talking to my neighbour. She is in her 20's, a teaching assistant, doing a teaching degree at night school. So, about the most sensible and cost effective way of doing a degree. Will leave with 18k of debt. We worked out that it could well be cheaper for her to get a loan from the bank upon graduation then pay it off over 5 years when she gets a teaching job (should be about 3% interest, if the current bank interest rates are sustained), than stay with the student loans company.
Aside from vocational degrees such as the above; University education is for the wealthy only. An extension of private school; but the student loans system enables the poor and naive to be exploited under the guise of 'access'.
Commercial bank offering unsecured personal loan for 3%?
Colour me sceptical.
I've taken out unsecured loans at this rate. Admittedly not recently though.
Another option is mortgage equity withdrawal, that could bring the rate down to sub 2%, dependent on personal circumstances. Or just borrow the money off a wealthy relative and pay it back at 1-2%; win win as the savings rate is hopeless.
What was the politicos rationale for the interest rate being so high? If you get a high flying job and reach six figures in your 20s, you pay it off early. The bigger chunk will presumably never pay it off. But there will be plenty in the middle who do pay it off but take most of their working life to do so.
Was it purely so they could privatise the loan book with as small a discount as possible? Poor form if so.
Well it was all pursued in the interest of sound public finances. Balancing the books. Paying our way in the world. Cutting the deficit. Strong and stable government in the National Interest.
Well yes, but it was all based on the premise that we needed to send 50% of our youth to university. Take that arbitrary target away and it becomes somewhat easier to suppose that do go through university. We could even decide to pay the tuition fees of those doing courses we were looking to encourage (i.e. STEM courses).
The fundamental problem is the decreasing graduate premium (which is, of course, a result of there being too many graduates). It simply makes no sense to spend 4-5 years of a 45 year career training and studying incurring over £100k of debt to earn salaries of less than £50k. As you point out those that do will never repay their student "loans" and will simply pay what is effectively a higher tax rate for most of their careers making the housing ladder more inaccessible and pension provision more challenging. How distant the Tory dream of a property owning democracy seems now.
Mass property ownership was only feasible because decades of social democracy had flattened the income and wealth distribution. Now, decades of Thatcherism have led to an increasing concentration of wealth. In other words, mass home ownership and popular share ownership were only transitory phases. The real Tory dream is the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, and that is where we are heading.
Over 2/3 of the UK population still own the property in which theyl ive, either outright or with a mortgage. 100 years ago most of the population rented. The Tory dream is still that the majority own their own homes and many get shares too as that is the most likely way to make them vote Tory eg the Tories did not get 10 consecutive years in power since universal suffrage until the expansion of property ownership and housebuilding under Macmillan and they then extended that after Thatcher endabled more to buy their their own council homes from 1979-1997.
When I met my wife, back in the 50's, her family. father a senior, albeit local, nationalised industry official, lived in a council house. Many of their neighbours were similar middle management types. When I bought our second family home, in the late 60's the bank manager remarked that 'a figure of £14k might, in today's inflationary times, be paid'. That house today is probably worth 3/4 million.
My in-laws old house doesn't look anywhere near as smart and well-kept, nor does the rest of the row and 60 years ago.
I expect the owners are more likely to vote Tory though (and that is a rarity, generally owner occupied ex council houses tend to be well kept)
On current polls the Tories should get about 40-45% in North Shropshire on UNS, so even despite being a Leave seat they will still see a significant swing against them. However that does not mean they will lose it necessarily unless the vast majority of Labour voters tactically vote LD. In the end it may be the fact that it was Labour 2nd in the seat in 2019 not the LDs, despite the latter making the biggest challenge, that will save the Tory candidate. Not the fact it was a solid but overwhelmingly Leave seat.
If the Tories lose the seat Boris could face a VONC in the next few weeks, though I think he would narrowly survive it for now which would keep him safe for a year. Longer term though more important for his survival will be the booster programme proving effective
Who are your first and second choices for Tory leader if Boris Johnson does leave office soon?
The “Great British Dream” is dead. This is by no means solely a British problem, but I think it is probably worse here.
When I talk to 20-somethings, unless their parents are loaded, they have no hope of ever getting on the housing ladder.
Class advancement has utterly collapsed.
University education has become a bizarre fiscal imposition, you can’t *not* do it (because you want a “middle class job”), but you can’t afford to do it, either.
I was born poor and came to this country with nothing, and I regret with all my heart that my journey is now nigh-on impossible.
MEANWHILE,
My top end art gallerist friend has “never been busier” because her wealthy patrons have done so well during Covid and need to diversify their asset base.
A society cannot last forever if the stories it tells itself (work hard and prosper!) are false.
Examine the language you used: "the housing ladder". In what sense could "housing" be a "ladder"? Is it? Should it be?
What do you mean, “could”?
It served well enough for my grandparents, then my parents, and then me.
“Should” is an interesting question, but space does not permit a proper answer.
Ok, let me put it this way.
A ladder is a tool that elevates you from one level to another. The way that PT described people buying a cheap house, then a more expensive one and so on etc doesn't strike me as a "ladder". That strikes me as the levels. The thing that allows you to access the different levels is having more money.
The way in which housing can function as a "ladder" is when you derive wealth from it. I think a lot of people see housing as a way of becoming richer. You buy cheap and you sell dear. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you buy a bigger house because that too will have increased in price.
So housing being a "ladder" I think can work in general sense, but only if housing keeps increasing in value relative to income and a significant proportion of other investment or assets. That is obviously unsustainable in the long run.
Perhaps some people have a different idea of a "ladder", that is, it is a yardstick by which you measure individual wealth as oppose to a means to an end. But I think a lot of people see things the way I described above: a ladder in the snakes-and-ladders sense. A shortcut that some will land on and others simply won't.
Never occurred to me, but possibly the root of the metaphor is that a ladder is temporary? If you don't get on it today while you have the chance, it might have been pulled up tomorrow (tr: you might have missed out on your chance of ever owning property).
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
They... lost though?
They sent a warning shot though that any Tory PM who tried to impose another lockdown would be toppled.
The focus should be on getting people to get their boosters not further restrictions
We. Are. In. Total. Agreement.
*goes to sit down, perhaps alcohol will be involved*
Same here, it's 2pm somewhere in the world right?!
The “Great British Dream” is dead. This is by no means solely a British problem, but I think it is probably worse here.
When I talk to 20-somethings, unless their parents are loaded, they have no hope of ever getting on the housing ladder.
Class advancement has utterly collapsed.
University education has become a bizarre fiscal imposition, you can’t *not* do it (because you want a “middle class job”), but you can’t afford to do it, either.
I was born poor and came to this country with nothing, and I regret with all my heart that my journey is now nigh-on impossible.
MEANWHILE,
My top end art gallerist friend has “never been busier” because her wealthy patrons have done so well during Covid and need to diversify their asset base.
A society cannot last forever if the stories it tells itself (work hard and prosper!) are false.
Examine the language you used: "the housing ladder". In what sense could "housing" be a "ladder"? Is it? Should it be?
What do you mean, “could”?
It served well enough for my grandparents, then my parents, and then me.
“Should” is an interesting question, but space does not permit a proper answer.
Ok, let me put it this way.
A ladder is a tool that elevates you from one level to another. The way that PT described people buying a cheap house, then a more expensive one and so on etc doesn't strike me as a "ladder". That strikes me as the levels. The thing that allows you to access the different levels is having more money.
The way in which housing can function as a "ladder" is when you derive wealth from it. I think a lot of people see housing as a way of becoming richer. You buy cheap and you sell dear. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you buy a bigger house because that too will have increased in price.
So housing being a "ladder" I think can work in general sense, but only if housing keeps increasing in value relative to income and a significant proportion of other investment or assets. That is obviously unsustainable in the long run.
Perhaps some people have a different idea of a "ladder", that is, it is a yardstick by which you measure individual wealth as opposed to a means to an end. But I think a lot of people see things the way I described above: a ladder in the snakes-and-ladders sense. A shortcut that some will land on and others simply won't.
You're forgetting that house buying also enables you to convert part of your expenses (rent) into investment and wealth creation. So it does not rely purely on asset value inflation. And if you buy bigger and rent out rooms, you are also creating an entirely new income stream.
I am not "forgetting" that at all. The fact that you're storing some of your income in an asset is fine, but if house prices are outstripping wages, then it's a bubble. That's the point. Ladder = bubble in the first sense I described. Wanting to own a home is in most cases rational. Wanting it to be a source of increased wealth in and of itself (we aren't talking about rental income which you pay for in obligations) is irrational but a very commonly held irrationality.
Well it's not irrational, because it happens. But I agree that in an ideal world it shouldn't - house prices should be a) more affordable and b) should increase at exactly the level of inflation - no more.
It happens in the sense that yes, bubbles do inflate. But something happens to bubbles eventually.
On the booster programme - I think the government are really missing a trick by putting all the focus on boosters. The campaign should be get your next dose. There's 4m people who have only had a single vaccine dose and 5m with none, the booster media campaign does nothing to get these people onto the next immunity step and there's a lot of low hanging fruit IMO, especially among those who didn't bother with the second dose. Getting them to do it would be a piece of piss, a phone call from a nurse explaining the benefits would be enough for loads.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
They... lost though?
Lost the battle, but Boris has been put on notice by the party.
Damien Green, one of the rebels was interviewed on South East Tonight, making the point that he voted for the changes that would make a difference to transmission, just against the one which would not.
I can't take credit for this, but posting because it tickled me:
'The current advice seems to be to hold parties but don't go to them.'
I once did that. I threw a big party but didn't go to it. I fancied it created a bit of an enigmatic aura around me - not so much who is that man (like with Gatsby) but more where is that man?
On current polls the Tories should get about 40-45% in North Shropshire on UNS, so even despite being a Leave seat they will still see a significant swing against them. However that does not mean they will lose it necessarily unless the vast majority of Labour voters tactically vote LD. In the end it may be the fact that it was Labour 2nd in the seat in 2019 not the LDs, despite the latter making the biggest challenge, that will save the Tory candidate. Not the fact it was a solid but overwhelmingly Leave seat.
If the Tories lose the seat Boris could face a VONC in the next few weeks, though I think he would narrowly survive it for now which would keep him safe for a year. Longer term though more important for his survival will be the booster programme proving effective
Who are your first and second choices for Tory leader if Boris Johnson does leave office soon?
1 Sunak 2 Javid
I am not a member, so my view is irrelevant, but that would probably also be my 1-2.
Googling of the term "property ladder" fell away around the global financial crisis and hasn't returned. Not sure what conclusions you can derive from that. Perhaps the end of capitalism?
The GFC was a clear pivot point in capitalism. It became clear that it no longer works in a way that supports bourgeois values (thrift, fair play, importance of education etc).
So, if the Mirror is right the extremely rich Rishi Sunak is in California on business; the state where he met his wife and where he, apparently, owns a home in Santa Monica and has lots of friends there. I'm not sure why this business trip wasn't public knowledge, but it clearly wasn't. Wonder why.
Could be a problem for Sunak. Whatever one's view of Omicron and what should be done, we are in the middle of another Covid crisis and it's clearly going to have major economic implications for lots of businesses. But the man to decide whether to lend support to hospitality businesses (which are going to lose loads of money whether or not more restrictions are put in place) is on a jolly business trip in California. I'll bet Cyclefree is livid.
Sunak has relatives there. Part of his wife's family are Californian.
And Cyclefree is always livid about something, in any case.
I've just got home.
My Daughter's business is taking 40% of the revenue she was taking in November let alone December. She is beyond depressed.
She normally closes for the first 2 weeks of January. Unless support is forthcoming, as other countries faced with this variant have provided, she will not be reopening. There is no point.
A business which survived, was viable, increased its turnover and was profitable will disappear because it simply cannot survive the loss of Xmas business without support. So all the support that was given before will have been for nothing.
Jobs lost. Local suppliers and breweries lose another customer and a village loses a venue. The government loses the tax revenues. What are the chances of the owner finding a buyer or tenant in this sort of environment? And yet the government is proposing to spend £21 million in the area to increase its attractiveness as a tourist destination. Where are people supposed to eat and stay when all the local venues have closed?
She is young. She is entrepreneurial and tough. But she looks utterly beaten and abandoned. It breaks my heart. She will not be the only one who feels like this. She and her generation are this country's future and this government is treating them like shit.
I expect better. At least I used to. Not any more.
More than livid I am utterly contemptuous of people like you who are so dismissive of what is happening to the young. And even more contemptuous of people like Sunak, cosseted by their money, who have no clue at the damage they are doing.
But I will wait and when I have the opportunity I will get my own back at the ballot box. I will not be the only one.
This country has been shafting the young for years. It was similar under Labour - they pulled up many ladders behind them: free education, good pensions, etc. The Millennials et al have been used as a human bank account by the older generations to feather-bed their existence and protect their inheritances.
It is why I have encouraged my kids to use their dual nationality to seek work overseas. The UK was a great country once and being British was something you could take pride in. Nowadays it is a joke with a comedy govt which is mapping the way to becoming a shabby, insular backwater.
That last paragraph speaks for most people I know. About 60% of my work was done for EU countries other than the UK particularly Germany Spain Italy and France. We used to cast from anywhere and I'd pick my crew from more or less where I wanted. There was as much chance I'd be working for a French agency in Italy as a German agency in France. We have given up a mighty collective for nothing but the vanity of a few crappy politicians. So glad I'm not starting now.
So, if the Mirror is right the extremely rich Rishi Sunak is in California on business; the state where he met his wife and where he, apparently, owns a home in Santa Monica and has lots of friends there. I'm not sure why this business trip wasn't public knowledge, but it clearly wasn't. Wonder why.
Could be a problem for Sunak. Whatever one's view of Omicron and what should be done, we are in the middle of another Covid crisis and it's clearly going to have major economic implications for lots of businesses. But the man to decide whether to lend support to hospitality businesses (which are going to lose loads of money whether or not more restrictions are put in place) is on a jolly business trip in California. I'll bet Cyclefree is livid.
Sunak has relatives there. Part of his wife's family are Californian.
And Cyclefree is always livid about something, in any case.
I've just got home.
My Daughter's business is taking 40% of the revenue she was taking in November let alone December. She is beyond depressed.
She normally closes for the first 2 weeks of January. Unless support is forthcoming, as other countries faced with this variant have provided, she will not be reopening. There is no point.
A business which survived, was viable, increased its turnover and was profitable will disappear because it simply cannot survive the loss of Xmas business without support. So all the support that was given before will have been for nothing.
Jobs lost. Local suppliers and breweries lose another customer and a village loses a venue. The government loses the tax revenues. What are the chances of the owner finding a buyer or tenant in this sort of environment? And yet the government is proposing to spend £21 million in the area to increase its attractiveness as a tourist destination. Where are people supposed to eat and stay when all the local venues have closed?
She is young. She is entrepreneurial and tough. But she looks utterly beaten and abandoned. It breaks my heart. She will not be the only one who feels like this. She and her generation are this country's future and this government is treating them like shit.
I expect better. At least I used to. Not any more.
More than livid I am utterly contemptuous of people like you who are so dismissive of what is happening to the young. And even more contemptuous of people like Sunak, cosseted by their money, who have no clue at the damage they are doing.
But I will wait and when I have the opportunity I will get my own back at the ballot box. I will not be the only one.
This country has been shafting the young for years. It was similar under Labour - they pulled up many ladders behind them: free education, good pensions, etc. The Millennials et al have been used as a human bank account by the older generations to feather-bed their existence and protect their inheritances.
It is why I have encouraged my kids to use their dual nationality to seek work overseas. The UK was a great country once and being British was something you could take pride in. Nowadays it is a joke with a comedy govt which is mapping the way to becoming a shabby, insular backwater.
Some excellent points - I think you are right about the young being systematically shxfted - the interest rate on the govt student loan scheme is a scandal is an excellent example, meanwhile the wealthy over 60s remain absolutely steadfast in their grip on political power - one of the great political shifts in the 21C has been the systematic hoovering up of the grey vote by the Conservatives in England - its given us BREXIT, a sex-crazed liar as PM, a series of culture wars and an inflated sense of national importance that will culminate in disaster at some point. I do think the Blues will edge it (but will watch with an enthusiasm for a byelection I've not had in years)
That RPI plus 3% on Student Loans is just cruel.
I was talking to my neighbour. She is in her 20's, a teaching assistant, doing a teaching degree at night school. So, about the most sensible and cost effective way of doing a degree. Will leave with 18k of debt. We worked out that it could well be cheaper for her to get a loan from the bank upon graduation then pay it off over 5 years when she gets a teaching job (should be about 3% interest, if the current bank interest rates are sustained), than stay with the student loans company.
Aside from vocational degrees such as the above; University education is for the wealthy only. An extension of private school; but the student loans system enables the poor and naive to be exploited under the guise of 'access'.
Commercial bank offering unsecured personal loan for 3%?
Colour me sceptical.
I've taken out unsecured loans at this rate. Admittedly not recently though.
Another option is mortgage equity withdrawal, that could bring the rate down to sub 2%, dependent on personal circumstances. Or just borrow the money off a wealthy relative and pay it back at 1-2%; win win as the savings rate is hopeless.
What was the politicos rationale for the interest rate being so high? If you get a high flying job and reach six figures in your 20s, you pay it off early. The bigger chunk will presumably never pay it off. But there will be plenty in the middle who do pay it off but take most of their working life to do so.
Was it purely so they could privatise the loan book with as small a discount as possible? Poor form if so.
Well it was all pursued in the interest of sound public finances. Balancing the books. Paying our way in the world. Cutting the deficit. Strong and stable government in the National Interest.
Well yes, but it was all based on the premise that we needed to send 50% of our youth to university. Take that arbitrary target away and it becomes somewhat easier to suppose that do go through university. We could even decide to pay the tuition fees of those doing courses we were looking to encourage (i.e. STEM courses).
The fundamental problem is the decreasing graduate premium (which is, of course, a result of there being too many graduates). It simply makes no sense to spend 4-5 years of a 45 year career training and studying incurring over £100k of debt to earn salaries of less than £50k. As you point out those that do will never repay their student "loans" and will simply pay what is effectively a higher tax rate for most of their careers making the housing ladder more inaccessible and pension provision more challenging. How distant the Tory dream of a property owning democracy seems now.
Mass property ownership was only feasible because decades of social democracy had flattened the income and wealth distribution. Now, decades of Thatcherism have led to an increasing concentration of wealth. In other words, mass home ownership and popular share ownership were only transitory phases. The real Tory dream is the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, and that is where we are heading.
Over 2/3 of the UK population still own the property in which theyl ive, either outright or with a mortgage. 100 years ago most of the population rented. The Tory dream is still that the majority own their own homes and many get shares too as that is the most likely way to make them vote Tory eg the Tories did not get 10 consecutive years in power since universal suffrage until the expansion of property ownership and housebuilding under Macmillan and they then extended that after Thatcher endabled more to buy their their own council homes from 1979-1997.
When I met my wife, back in the 50's, her family. father a senior, albeit local, nationalised industry official, lived in a council house. Many of their neighbours were similar middle management types. When I bought our second family home, in the late 60's the bank manager remarked that 'a figure of £14k might, in today's inflationary times, be paid'. That house today is probably worth 3/4 million.
My in-laws old house doesn't look anywhere near as smart and well-kept, nor does the rest of the row and 60 years ago.
I expect the owners are more likely to vote Tory though (and that is a rarity, generally owner occupied ex council houses tend to be well kept)
It's currently a Labour seat although the Tory vote in the constituency has increased over the past few years. Around 20 years ago it swung between Libs/LD's and Labour. Back in the 50's it was Tory, but then their vote collapsed.
The “Great British Dream” is dead. This is by no means solely a British problem, but I think it is probably worse here.
When I talk to 20-somethings, unless their parents are loaded, they have no hope of ever getting on the housing ladder.
Class advancement has utterly collapsed.
University education has become a bizarre fiscal imposition, you can’t *not* do it (because you want a “middle class job”), but you can’t afford to do it, either.
I was born poor and came to this country with nothing, and I regret with all my heart that my journey is now nigh-on impossible.
MEANWHILE,
My top end art gallerist friend has “never been busier” because her wealthy patrons have done so well during Covid and need to diversify their asset base.
A society cannot last forever if the stories it tells itself (work hard and prosper!) are false.
Examine the language you used: "the housing ladder". In what sense could "housing" be a "ladder"? Is it? Should it be?
What do you mean, “could”?
It served well enough for my grandparents, then my parents, and then me.
“Should” is an interesting question, but space does not permit a proper answer.
Ok, let me put it this way.
A ladder is a tool that elevates you from one level to another. The way that PT described people buying a cheap house, then a more expensive one and so on etc doesn't strike me as a "ladder". That strikes me as the levels. The thing that allows you to access the different levels is having more money.
The way in which housing can function as a "ladder" is when you derive wealth from it. I think a lot of people see housing as a way of becoming richer. You buy cheap and you sell dear. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you buy a bigger house because that too will have increased in price.
So housing being a "ladder" I think can work in general sense, but only if housing keeps increasing in value relative to income and a significant proportion of other investment or assets. That is obviously unsustainable in the long run.
Perhaps some people have a different idea of a "ladder", that is, it is a yardstick by which you measure individual wealth as opposed to a means to an end. But I think a lot of people see things the way I described above: a ladder in the snakes-and-ladders sense. A shortcut that some will land on and others simply won't.
You're forgetting that house buying also enables you to convert part of your expenses (rent) into investment and wealth creation. So it does not rely purely on asset value inflation. And if you buy bigger and rent out rooms, you are also creating an entirely new income stream.
This is a common view, but it is a stretch of "enables" for me. It is perfectly possible to rent and invest in non housing assets, which in turn create new dividend income streams.
Which is better depends on the expected returns of housing vs non housing assets, and the cost of renting vs purchase and the non financial benefits of owning mostly security of tenure and not having to deal with shit landlords.
For most of our lifetimes in the UK owning has been clearly the better choice but that is not universally true and a comparison calculation should be made rather than a flawed assumption that owning enables investment and renting does not.
I would argue in central London at least renting is better overall value than owning at current prices.
I'd agree with that. I have only ever bought where the cost of servicing the mortgage (over some cycle, be it monthly, or the course of a period of years) has been less than the rent I'd be paying for the equivalent. And I have also tended to incorporate the delta in commuting and other costs in the calculation too.
I have bought and sold 8 properties over the course of my lifetime on that basis, but grant that I have opted not to buy many more because the maths did not work.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
It's true though, Whitty and the other scientists are there to advise, not make decisions. For the first time in what feels like forever the 100 Tories have wrestled control of the state back from the unelected tyranny of experts.
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
Chris Whitty is just telling people to be cautious, which seems fair?
The question is why is Dorries on Twitter spouting shite. Isn’t she supposed to be a Cabinet Minister?
I think Chris Whitty has to be bound to a policy decision and then sell the policy, if he doesn't agree then he's free to resign.
As for Dorries and Twitter, well Dave was always right about the latter. The world would be a better place if it ceased to exist.
But the policy isn't to live as if Omicron isn't there.
Chris Whitty doubles down: "People want to protect the time that is most important to them. That does mean in practice that it is sensible for people to cut down on work or other interactions with people, incl potentially social ones, that are less important to them." https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1471429084588744706
On the booster programme - I think the government are really missing a trick by putting all the focus on boosters. The campaign should be get your next dose. There's 4m people who have only had a single vaccine dose and 5m with none, the booster media campaign does nothing to get these people onto the next immunity step and there's a lot of low hanging fruit IMO, especially among those who didn't bother with the second dose. Getting them to do it would be a piece of piss, a phone call from a nurse explaining the benefits would be enough for loads.
Very good point, although in practice it does sound (anecdotally at least) as though there is an uptick in the numbers now coming forward for their first or second jabs.
Googling of the term "property ladder" fell away around the global financial crisis and hasn't returned. Not sure what conclusions you can derive from that. Perhaps the end of capitalism?
The GFC was a clear pivot point in capitalism. It became clear that it no longer works in a way that supports bourgeois values (thrift, fair play, importance of education etc).
I'm not sure I'm ready to follow you into such bold conclusions, but it's food for thought. Though fair play has never been a part of capitalism, for all its other virtues.
The real dilemma for the Chancellor is how to target help to those small businesses who really need it like @Cyclefree daughter while not subsidising those with shareholders who should take the hit rather than the taxpayer
Every business has shareholders Big G.
It is quite obvious what Big G meant.
My business (a single proprietor LLC) has no shareholders. So Topping is wrong, plain and simple. Of course, I have stakeholders, but not shareholders.
The stakeholders or members in many regards look for all the world like shareholders, save for an ability to, er, limit liability.
But you used the word shareholder.
They are owners of the LLC and hence shareholders is appropriate to use.
No it is not. While they are owners, there are no shares to own, and hence no shareholder (which per business would be singular in any case). Why can't you simply admit you were wrong in your word choice.
Owners = shareholders
shareholders hold shares and are owners of corporations with a share structure. owners of corporations without shares are not shareholders. you were petty point scoring and got egg on your face but are too little to admit it
What are you talking about. Owners = shareholders. Shareholders means owners of a company or a corporation or an LLC. If you and a mate own the LLC in equal measure how much each of the LLC do you own?
Most partnerships have no shares. A single proprietor LLC has no shares. There are no shareholders in either because there are no shares to own. There are owners. But there are no shareholders.
"Answer: No. This is because of the different ownership interests of a partnership and a company structure."
While is true that shareholders are owners of the corporations in which they own shares, it is not necessarily true that owners are shareholders - they will not be unless the corporations has a share structure.
Your initial statement - all companies have shareholders. Simply not true.
Chris Whitty doubles down: "People want to protect the time that is most important to them. That does mean in practice that it is sensible for people to cut down on work or other interactions with people, incl potentially social ones, that are less important to them." https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1471429084588744706
It is really painful that this kind of logic needs spelled out but there we are.
Interesting report oif work suggesting that the Anglo-Scottish border line is in fact very ancient and pre-Roman (somewhat contra Neil Oliver), and that the Roman wall line followed Roman military dictates rather than the precise cultural boundary. I imagine thanks to the different effects of topography on the natives vs the Romans.
The next few days are going to see some eye watering Covid case totals. Despite us all knowing this was coming, I think it's going to take some very solid brass necks to resist the inevitable locking down. Hospitalisations will rise too, even if they're not going anywhere near overwhelming levels. The optics are going to be scary.
It's been the consistent psychology of this pandemic that absolute totals count for little in the public mind. It's direction of travel. When cases were in the tens of thousands and deaths in the multiple hundreds, but falling, in Jan and Feb last year, people felt positive and were talking about opening up. During early summer when Delta rates went up sharply everyone panicked, but months of high daily cases and >100 daily deaths since barely caused a ripple. Now the speed of increase of Omicron is playing its game with everyone's minds again.
I expect things to slow down a tad this week because everyone, myself included, is hiding away desperate not to catch it and spoil Christmas. Testing will probably drop sharply too.
If things are still open on the 27th I intend to spend as much time and money as possible in our local restaurants and attractions because hospitality is getting screwed over big time and needs all the help it can get. If ever there were a time for an unofficial eat out to help out it's in the weeks after this Christmas.
There were neither Angles nor Scots when the 'border' of the Antonine or Hadrian Walls was brought in!
Oh, quite so. I did say the Anglo-Scottosh border line ie as a line on the map, not who was then on each side. Buit should have made that clearer, sorry.
Interesting report oif work suggesting that the Anglo-Scottish border line is in fact very ancient and pre-Roman (somewhat contra Neil Oliver), and that the Roman wall line followed Roman military dictates rather than the precise cultural boundary. I imagine thanks to the different effects of topography on the natives vs the Romans.
Genetic mapping shows that most Scots and English are identical. Sorry
Interestingly they advised that I stay for the fifteen minutes. I asked saying that I thought that advice had been dropped. They said that the Government have dropped the fifteen minutes advice but as medical professionals they're still recommending it since I've not had the vaccine before and could have an allergic reaction to it.
Interesting report oif work suggesting that the Anglo-Scottish border line is in fact very ancient and pre-Roman (somewhat contra Neil Oliver), and that the Roman wall line followed Roman military dictates rather than the precise cultural boundary. I imagine thanks to the different effects of topography on the natives vs the Romans.
Genetic mapping shows that most Scots and English are identical. Sorry
Nothing to do with that: just that the topography obviously forces a cultural border on that line on the evidence. Despite many unionists claiming it's a modern construct.
All irrelevant to modern politics - especially the genetics - except for debunking various myuths.
Interesting report oif work suggesting that the Anglo-Scottish border line is in fact very ancient and pre-Roman (somewhat contra Neil Oliver), and that the Roman wall line followed Roman military dictates rather than the precise cultural boundary. I imagine thanks to the different effects of topography on the natives vs the Romans.
I would politely suggest that that is a load of dingo's kidneys.
The real dilemma for the Chancellor is how to target help to those small businesses who really need it like @Cyclefree daughter while not subsidising those with shareholders who should take the hit rather than the taxpayer
Every business has shareholders Big G.
It is quite obvious what Big G meant.
My business (a single proprietor LLC) has no shareholders. So Topping is wrong, plain and simple. Of course, I have stakeholders, but not shareholders.
The stakeholders or members in many regards look for all the world like shareholders, save for an ability to, er, limit liability.
But you used the word shareholder.
They are owners of the LLC and hence shareholders is appropriate to use.
No it is not. While they are owners, there are no shares to own, and hence no shareholder (which per business would be singular in any case). Why can't you simply admit you were wrong in your word choice.
Owners = shareholders
shareholders hold shares and are owners of corporations with a share structure. owners of corporations without shares are not shareholders. you were petty point scoring and got egg on your face but are too little to admit it
What are you talking about. Owners = shareholders. Shareholders means owners of a company or a corporation or an LLC. If you and a mate own the LLC in equal measure how much each of the LLC do you own?
Most partnerships have no shares. A single proprietor LLC has no shares. There are no shareholders in either because there are no shares to own. There are owners. But there are no shareholders.
"Answer: No. This is because of the different ownership interests of a partnership and a company structure."
While is true that shareholders are owners of the corporations in which they own shares, it is not necessarily true that owners are shareholders - they will not be unless the corporations has a share structure.
Your initial statement - all companies have shareholders. Simply not true.
It's semantics which has kept the LLC system remarkably popular. For all intents and purposes owners = shareholders = owners.
This could make a big difference to daily numbers. UKHSA estimate people who have already had Covid are three to eight times more likely to catch Omicron than the Delta variant
Sounds like it’s not coming in immediately but some time in course of omicron wave
Googling of the term "property ladder" fell away around the global financial crisis and hasn't returned. Not sure what conclusions you can derive from that. Perhaps the end of capitalism?
The GFC was a clear pivot point in capitalism. It became clear that it no longer works in a way that supports bourgeois values (thrift, fair play, importance of education etc).
I'm not sure I'm ready to follow you into such bold conclusions, but it's food for thought. Though fair play has never been a part of capitalism, for all its other virtues.
Best way to view capitalism in my view is as morally neutral. It is not a being with agency do it doesn't have virtues or vices. It is a system of trade and production which can be allowed to do its thing when the outcomes are good for humans (e.g. its ability to balance supply and demand, or encourage labour-saving innovation), but needs to be regulated and controlled when the outcomes would otherwise be bad for humans (e.g. the tendency to monopolies, or environmental pollution).
The next few days are going to see some eye watering Covid case totals. Despite us all knowing this was coming, I think it's going to take some very solid brass necks to resist the inevitable locking down. Hospitalisations will rise too, even if they're not going anywhere near overwhelming levels. The optics are going to be scary.
It's been the consistent psychology of this pandemic that absolute totals count for little in the public mind. It's direction of travel. When cases were in the tens of thousands and deaths in the multiple hundreds, but falling, in Jan and Feb last year, people felt positive and were talking about opening up. During early summer when Delta rates went up sharply everyone panicked, but months of high daily cases and >100 daily deaths since barely caused a ripple. Now the speed of increase of Omicron is playing its game with everyone's minds again.
I expect things to slow down a tad this week because everyone, myself included, is hiding away desperate not to catch it and spoil Christmas. Testing will probably drop sharply too.
If things are still open on the 27th I intend to spend as much time and money as possible in our local restaurants and attractions because hospitality is getting screwed over big time and needs all the help it can get. If ever there were a time for an unofficial eat out to help out it's in the weeks after this Christmas.
Of the several TimInitials posting this is one that I wholeheartedly agree with.
On current polls the Tories should get about 40-45% in North Shropshire on UNS, so even despite being a Leave seat they will still see a significant swing against them. However that does not mean they will lose it necessarily unless the vast majority of Labour voters tactically vote LD. In the end it may be the fact that it was Labour 2nd in the seat in 2019 not the LDs, despite the latter making the biggest challenge, that will save the Tory candidate. Not the fact it was a solid but overwhelmingly Leave seat.
If the Tories lose the seat Boris could face a VONC in the next few weeks, though I think he would narrowly survive it for now which would keep him safe for a year. Longer term though more important for his survival will be the booster programme proving effective
Who are your first and second choices for Tory leader if Boris Johnson does leave office soon?
1 Sunak 2 Javid
I am not a member, so my view is irrelevant, but that would probably also be my 1-2.
1) Hunt and 2) Hunt.
no-one else is: in the HoC, currently a Tory, not associated with this government, not mad, not ancient, has ministerial experience, would appeal to One Nation Tories.
For all these reasons I suppose his chance is about zero. But it is worth thinking how the Tories managed to not have Ken Clarke as leader, while much more limited characters lost election after election.
Interestingly they advised that I stay for the fifteen minutes. I asked saying that I thought that advice had been dropped. They said that the Government have dropped the fifteen minutes advice but as medical professionals they're still recommending it since I've not had the vaccine before and could have an allergic reaction to it.
Sensible. The original advice was based on that very thing so there really is no good medical reason for dropping it if the booster is a new vaccine for you.
There were neither Angles nor Scots when the 'border' of the Antonine or Hadrian Walls was brought in!
Didn't the Brythonic Kingdom of Strathclyde cover what we now call Cumbria and Galloway?
Also the Anglic kingdom borders also shifted. But it's interesting though that the Gretna-Berwick line is argued to be a natural line, like the Forth-Clyde and Morecambe Bay boundaries.
No. I’ve just had enough. I’m sitting in the sunlit garden next to my Antony Gormley statue in this billionaire’s garden in the Balearics, sipping an early cocktail, and then I come on here and it’s WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE Oh property ladder this Oh my pension that Oh my hamster’s got AIDS in his perineum and I am Scottish WHAT CAN I DO WHY WON’T THE GOVERNMENT HELP BLAH BLAH BLAH
Enough. Get up off your pimply bottoms, go to the drinks cabinet, pour yourself a stiff one, sit down, sip your drink, then get up again, go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself a second, and then finally sit down and think about everything and get it all in perspective and then stand up again and go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself the entire bottle
Interesting report oif work suggesting that the Anglo-Scottish border line is in fact very ancient and pre-Roman (somewhat contra Neil Oliver), and that the Roman wall line followed Roman military dictates rather than the precise cultural boundary. I imagine thanks to the different effects of topography on the natives vs the Romans.
I would politely suggest that that is a load of dingo's kidneys.
On the booster programme - I think the government are really missing a trick by putting all the focus on boosters. The campaign should be get your next dose. There's 4m people who have only had a single vaccine dose and 5m with none, the booster media campaign does nothing to get these people onto the next immunity step and there's a lot of low hanging fruit IMO, especially among those who didn't bother with the second dose. Getting them to do it would be a piece of piss, a phone call from a nurse explaining the benefits would be enough for loads.
I normally agree with you but on this I disagree.
The millions without a first dose are not low hanging fruit. They're morons that we've been trying to convince all year long and still only 10s of thousands per day are getting it, and younger people becoming eligible make up some of that too.
For the second too I don't think it's remotely a piece of piss and some of those who haven't had their second are morons who had a reaction to the first and decided a sore arm for a few days is worse than Covid.
Getting half a million to a million plus per day jabbed again is more meaningful than futilely chasing morons. In some ways it's a living example of the Pareto Principle.
No. I’ve just had enough. I’m sitting in the sunlit garden next to my Antony Gormley statue in this billionaire’s garden in the Balearics, sipping an early cocktail, and then I come on here and it’s WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE Oh property ladder this Oh my pension that Oh my hamster’s got AIDS in his perineum and I am Scottish WHAT CAN I DO WHY WON’T THE GOVERNMENT HELP BLAH BLAH BLAH
Enough. Get up off your pimply bottoms, go to the drinks cabinet, pour yourself a stiff one, sit down, sip your drink, then get up again, go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself a second, and then finally sit down and think about everything and get it all in perspective and then stand up again and go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself the entire bottle
Bit early for me. I mean, the sun's only just up. But I've come in from tidying my shed for the winter and am happy to say that I am now going to go back to more tidying and will trouble you no more.
Chris Whitty doubles down: "People want to protect the time that is most important to them. That does mean in practice that it is sensible for people to cut down on work or other interactions with people, incl potentially social ones, that are less important to them." https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1471429084588744706
It is really painful that this kind of logic needs spelled out but there we are.
The only reason people are wanting to "protect" time is because of the idiotic self isolation rules we still have when we can not and should not be controlling the spread of the virus.
Interestingly they advised that I stay for the fifteen minutes. I asked saying that I thought that advice had been dropped. They said that the Government have dropped the fifteen minutes advice but as medical professionals they're still recommending it since I've not had the vaccine before and could have an allergic reaction to it.
Great news! And the latter makes sense, for people who have had two mRNA doses it's pointless making them hang around. For people who haven't had one before there's probably still value.
Interesting report oif work suggesting that the Anglo-Scottish border line is in fact very ancient and pre-Roman (somewhat contra Neil Oliver), and that the Roman wall line followed Roman military dictates rather than the precise cultural boundary. I imagine thanks to the different effects of topography on the natives vs the Romans.
When we studied Hadrian's Wall for Higher Latin, the prevailing view was that the wall wasn't so much a boundary as a means of policing the border region on both sides of the wall. In other words, Roman power projected some way north of the wall, and was far from absolute some way south. That would seem to be in line with this story. To me the interesting question is why Northern and Southern England are so intent on being one country, when they are so culturally distinct. I think there are at least five distinct countries in Great Britain - Scotland, Wales, Northern England, Southern England and Cornwall, plus two independent and culturally distinct City States (London and Liverpool).
Does suggest, of course, that before TV umpires missed a lot.
I do think that the Australians are being overly literal. They chose to bat and then they did. Surely they should appreciate that that choice involves a series of airy wafts outside the off stump and missing the balls heading to the base of leg?
No. I’ve just had enough. I’m sitting in the sunlit garden next to my Antony Gormley statue in this billionaire’s garden in the Balearics, sipping an early cocktail, and then I come on here and it’s WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE Oh property ladder this Oh my pension that Oh my hamster’s got AIDS in his perineum and I am Scottish WHAT CAN I DO WHY WON’T THE GOVERNMENT HELP BLAH BLAH BLAH
Enough. Get up off your pimply bottoms, go to the drinks cabinet, pour yourself a stiff one, sit down, sip your drink, then get up again, go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself a second, and then finally sit down and think about everything and get it all in perspective and then stand up again and go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself the entire bottle
Coming from the person who could win the gold medal with a world record if panicking was an Olympic sport.
Interesting report oif work suggesting that the Anglo-Scottish border line is in fact very ancient and pre-Roman (somewhat contra Neil Oliver), and that the Roman wall line followed Roman military dictates rather than the precise cultural boundary. I imagine thanks to the different effects of topography on the natives vs the Romans.
Genetic mapping shows that most Scots and English are identical. Sorry
Nothing to do with that: just that the topography obviously forces a cultural border on that line on the evidence. Despite many unionists claiming it's a modern construct.
All irrelevant to modern politics - especially the genetics - except for debunking various myuths.
Except it doesn't. There is no real difference between the landscape 50 miles north of that line and 50 miles south. The line was chosen by the Romans for much of its length because it sits on an igneous intrusion known as the Whin Sill. Good foundations. But that same intrusion also forms High Force many miles to the south. If you were going to make such claims (not you personally of course) then the obvious choice would be the Firth of Forth. Lowland Scotland south of Edinburgh and Glasgow was no different from Northern England in terms of its occupation styles and the main identifiable cultural difference - the Pictish settlement - is again north of the Firth of Forth.
Comments
The Times write up on the rebellion did make me laugh though, apparently Boris thought getting Whitty to give the rebel leaders the same presentation they got would change their minds, instead it emboldened them because one of them asked point blank - would vaccine passports make any difference to transmission of the virus - and Whitty said no, they wouldn't. Another one asked what would make a difference and he apparently said they don't know if anything would work because big Omi is so transmissive.
The last number I saw was that potential for the UK was 80 GWp.
So 5x in a little over 10 years is not necessarily that much extra.
Personally I would target energy export into Europe as a key future export sector, since we are a decade or more ahead of the rest (Denmark possibly excepted) on offshore wind. And I'd drive development of a new industrial sector and maintenance sector off it. All to replace the oil sector as it continues to wind down.
Suspect that that is another lead that will be pissed away.r
'The current advice seems to be to hold parties but don't go to them.'
It wasn't about getting richer, it was about getting up the housing ladder.
The problem is inflation. In the 20th Century we had inflation in prices, wages and houses relatively equitably, so houses were a relatively steady ratio to income but by getting on the ladder inflation would inflate your deposit for the next rung of the ladder. You wouldn't be wealthier in real terms (because inflation ate it away) but you'd be able to climb the ladder and be better off.
The problem is that since the turn of the century we had the awful combination of housing inflation but no wage or price inflation. As a result the ladder was pulled away and anyone in a house got a massive wealth bonus (since there's no wage and price inflation) while anyone not on it was royally fucked and told what a great thing it is that there's no inflation anymore while seeing houses inflate out of their reach.
Does suggest, of course, that before TV umpires missed a lot.
The focus should be on getting people to get their boosters not further restrictions
The question is why is Dorries on Twitter spouting shite. Isn’t she supposed to be a Cabinet Minister?
*goes to sit down, perhaps alcohol will be involved*
Wanting to own a home is in most cases rational. Wanting it to be a source of increased wealth in and of itself (we aren't talking about rental income which you pay for in obligations) is irrational but a very commonly held irrationality.
Which is better depends on the expected returns of housing vs non housing assets, and the cost of renting vs purchase and the non financial benefits of owning mostly security of tenure and not having to deal with shit landlords.
For most of our lifetimes in the UK owning has been clearly the better choice but that is not universally true and a comparison calculation should be made rather than a flawed assumption that owning enables investment and renting does not.
I would argue in central London at least renting is better overall value than owning at current prices.
The metaphor worked in the past. It wasn't a bubble when we had inflation in wages and prices to match inflation in houses.
We need a return of inflation in wages being at least as high or higher than inflation in houses. And we need to reverse the damage of the past two decades of inflation.
Seeing wealthy people with houses crying crocodile tears about inflation because wages are going up now, when they've been minting inflation for the past twenty years, is amusing.
That is just a fact. However non white Christians in the UK eg Pentecostal Africans tend to be more regular church attenders than the average white Briton
LAB: 38% (+2)
CON: 34% (-5)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 7% (+2)
REFUK: 3% (+1)
via @Kantar, 09 - 13 Dec
Chgs. w/ Nov
https://www.newstatesman.com/the-latest-polls-britain-elects
As for Dorries and Twitter, well Dave was always right about the latter. The world would be a better place if it ceased to exist.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=GB&q=property ladder
Googling of the term "property ladder" fell away around the global financial crisis and hasn't returned.
Not sure what conclusions you can derive from that. Perhaps the end of capitalism?
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19788666.scotlands-omicron-guidance-much-clearer-uks-says-health-expert-andrew-hayward/?ref=ebbn
2 Javid
And it was a good do, by all accounts.
It became clear that it no longer works in a way that supports bourgeois values (thrift, fair play, importance of education etc).
15 million people live in Gauteng
Perhaps he is lying.
https://twitter.com/David_Makhura/status/1471059370192613377?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1471419870680125441
Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.
LAB: 37% (-3)
CON: 32% (-)
LDEM: 10% (+2)
GRN: 7% (-)
REFUK: 6% (-1)
via @YouGov, 14 - 15 Dec
Chgs. w/ 10 Dec
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/16/voting-intention-con-32-lab-37-14-15-dec?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=voting_intention
I have bought and sold 8 properties over the course of my lifetime on that basis, but grant that I have opted not to buy many more because the maths did not work.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1471429084588744706
And look at the figures in Germany:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/1471404112680042497
Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.
Though fair play has never been a part of capitalism, for all its other virtues.
“Home2Labs”, which comes with a Public Health England approval, seems to have collapsed, and who knows if I’ll get £220 back?
I’m flying tomorrow apparently.
How’s your morning going?
See: https://legalvision.com.au/q-and-a/can-a-partnership-have-shareholders/ for just one example
"Can a partnership have shareholders?
"Answer: No. This is because of the different ownership interests of a partnership and a company structure."
While is true that shareholders are owners of the corporations in which they own shares, it is not necessarily true that owners are shareholders - they will not be unless the corporations has a share structure.
Your initial statement - all companies have shareholders. Simply not true.
Interesting report oif work suggesting that the Anglo-Scottish border line is in fact very ancient and pre-Roman (somewhat contra Neil Oliver), and that the Roman wall line followed Roman military dictates rather than the precise cultural boundary. I imagine thanks to the different effects of topography on the natives vs the Romans.
It's been the consistent psychology of this pandemic that absolute totals count for little in the public mind. It's direction of travel. When cases were in the tens of thousands and deaths in the multiple hundreds, but falling, in Jan and Feb last year, people felt positive and were talking about opening up. During early summer when Delta rates went up sharply everyone panicked, but months of high daily cases and >100 daily deaths since barely caused a ripple. Now the speed of increase of Omicron is playing its game with everyone's minds again.
I expect things to slow down a tad this week because everyone, myself included, is hiding away desperate not to catch it and spoil Christmas. Testing will probably drop sharply too.
If things are still open on the 27th I intend to spend as much time and money as possible in our local restaurants and attractions because hospitality is getting screwed over big time and needs all the help it can get. If ever there were a time for an unofficial eat out to help out it's in the weeks after this Christmas.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1471430835173797888
There were neither Angles nor Scots when the 'border' of the Antonine or Hadrian Walls was brought in!
The ventilation percentage is far lower than previous waves.
AZ/AZ/Moderna.
Interestingly they advised that I stay for the fifteen minutes. I asked saying that I thought that advice had been dropped. They said that the Government have dropped the fifteen minutes advice but as medical professionals they're still recommending it since I've not had the vaccine before and could have an allergic reaction to it.
All irrelevant to modern politics - especially the genetics - except for debunking various myuths.
This could make a big difference to daily numbers. UKHSA estimate people who have already had Covid are three to eight times more likely to catch Omicron than the Delta variant
Sounds like it’s not coming in immediately but some time in course of omicron wave
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1471406910163369990
https://twitter.com/bbchughpym/status/1471248608443912199
no-one else is: in the HoC, currently a Tory, not associated with this government, not mad, not ancient, has ministerial experience, would appeal to One Nation Tories.
For all these reasons I suppose his chance is about zero. But it is worth thinking how the Tories managed to not have Ken Clarke as leader, while much more limited characters lost election after election.
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1471432564367843337
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1471431346195210246
Enough. Get up off your pimply bottoms, go to the drinks cabinet, pour yourself a stiff one, sit down, sip your drink, then get up again, go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself a second, and then finally sit down and think about everything and get it all in perspective and then stand up again and go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself the entire bottle
86 on Ventilators
The UK has 7673 in hospital
896 on ventilators
The millions without a first dose are not low hanging fruit. They're morons that we've been trying to convince all year long and still only 10s of thousands per day are getting it, and younger people becoming eligible make up some of that too.
For the second too I don't think it's remotely a piece of piss and some of those who haven't had their second are morons who had a reaction to the first and decided a sore arm for a few days is worse than Covid.
Getting half a million to a million plus per day jabbed again is more meaningful than futilely chasing morons. In some ways it's a living example of the Pareto Principle.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX06xqN6710&ved=2ahUKEwjz2_3ukuj0AhV1QkEAHY0IBnkQjjh6BAguEAE&usg=AOvVaw0rkDXwbwFm4EoOMKRKigyD
Extraordinary complacency, and extraordinary to me that people dressed like that during my adult lifetime
https://twitter.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1471431916750610435
To me the interesting question is why Northern and Southern England are so intent on being one country, when they are so culturally distinct. I think there are at least five distinct countries in Great Britain - Scotland, Wales, Northern England, Southern England and Cornwall, plus two independent and culturally distinct City States (London and Liverpool).