6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
What have the Methodists done wrong? Or the Kirk and the Wee Free's?
The second chamber should be reserved for experts in useful subjects. That would necessarily exclude bishops, priests, rabbis, imams, sufis, yogis and door-to-door Mormons. Have I forgotten anyone? Don't all shout at once.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
" ... but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university ..."
I'm in some sympathy .... but you surely realise a Labour Govt cannot & will not do this.
Because it will mean some serious redundancies in the Universities and it will mean some Universities going bankrupt.
Which party controls almost all the University seats?
There is such a thing as Realpolitik
That's not necessarily a straightforward argument - it's possible that the Labour party does not in fact benefit from having its voters artificially concentrated in locations like university dorm areas. Worse, elections in term time also means a large number of their potential activists are are bottled up together in a seat they're going to easily win anyway.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
Glad to see this. I feel the world did not react strongly enough in 2014 and now it's really make or break in terms of facing down Vlad. We cannot afford another weak reaction or we could potentially be looking at WW3.
Not only that but with China ogling Taiwan as well. So so important IMO...
So the removal of any dependency on Russia, and the threat of sanctions that would absolutely pulverise Russia into the ground is vital, even if it costs Europe and the US $$...
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
The main problem our legislature has is that the Commons is now largely a partisan rubber stamp, in thrall to the PM and his whips, while the Lords is entirely lacking in legitimacy, and is very distant from the concerns of the public.
We need a body that has the legitimacy to block legislation from the Commons, but without creating a partisan logjam (which would be the result of an elected second chamber).
The answer is a Grand Jury, drawn from the population at random, to consider legislation.
The Grand Jury idea is similar to the Green Party concept of ctizens' assemblies - get 100 people together to discuss an issue and brief them really well so they understand the issue in depth. I see the attraction but it scares me as sometimes the 100 will by random selection be weighted to people who happen to have one or another obsession, in the same way that an opinion poll with a sample of 100 often throws up really weird results.
But the integral committee idea is good - I agree that my hypothetical asylum-seeker or ex-prisoner doesn't really need to be a voting member. Select Committees do try to invite a variety of opinions, but they tend to be establishment types, including the more serious NGOs. For example, a hearing on slaughterhouse conditions might well invite me, as an expert on animal welfare, but they'd be very unlikely to invite a slaughterhouse worker or even have any idea how to look for one.
IMO Grand Juries and Citizens' Assemblies are far too open to manipulation by appointed 'experts', and may only offer a selection of an approved set of opinions. Randomly selected citizens may not have the skills to resist such manipulation.
The real Grand Juries ("should this person be charged") only aiui exist properly in the USA now, where to me they resemble a posse going out on the hunt with the Public Prosecutor in the role of Sheriff.
There are reasons why other countries have moved on to a better system of determining whether a prosecution is tenable. Another backwards aspect of the USA legal system, for me.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
Why are hereditary peers any more rooted in the heritage of the nation than anyone else? What a ridiculously elitist notion. My ancestors maybe didn't kiss the arse of the King to obtain a title but I would bet they did more to contribute to this country through honest hard work and sacrifice than some lazy parasitic nobleman ensconced in his castle. As did yours, in all likelihood. When is this country going to move on from this absurd hat-doffing?
Peers family's have been responsible for preserving large areas of the country over centuries, and developing other parts of it.
Consider various Great Estates, or the more historic parts of London.
You wear a hat?
And who did all the work that allowed that preservation or development to take place? Are the descendents of those people any less rooted in the heritage that was created through their labour? No. They have no less stake in this country than all these descendents of plunderers, Royal bastards and arse-lickers. It's absurd that people allow themselves to be talked into accepting this kind of second class status.
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
Glad to see this. I feel the world did not react strongly enough in 2014 and now it's really make or break in terms of facing down Vlad. We cannot afford another weak reaction or we could potentially be looking at WW3.
Not only that but with China ogling Taiwan as well. So so important IMO...
So the removal of any dependency on Russia, and the threat of sanctions that would absolutely pulverise Russia into the ground is vital, even if it costs Europe and the US $$...
What "hi-tech components" does Leyen mean? Pretty sure Vlad will be able to source what he needs from his mates in China.
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
Why are hereditary peers any more rooted in the heritage of the nation than anyone else? What a ridiculously elitist notion. My ancestors maybe didn't kiss the arse of the King to obtain a title but I would bet they did more to contribute to this country through honest hard work and sacrifice than some lazy parasitic nobleman ensconced in his castle. As did yours, in all likelihood. When is this country going to move on from this absurd hat-doffing?
Peers family's have been responsible for preserving large areas of the country over centuries, and developing other parts of it.
Consider various Great Estates, or the more historic parts of London.
You wear a hat?
PS damn right I wear a hat in this kind of weather and with my hereditary baldness. And I won't be removing it for any in-bred Norman parasite!
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The other option is to go back to first principles. How did we end up with a House of Lords and a House of Commons? I believe this was so that there was a forum for the concerns of different groups in society to be discussed. There was a recognition that the Lords could not be represented by the Commons and the Commons could not be represented by the Lords.
Today we operate on an implicit assumption that we all have common interests which can be represented equally with a single vote apiece by representation in the Commons. Is this the case? Perhaps we should explicitly create different chambers, with different franchises, to represent different interest groups.
An honest approach might be to have a House of Big Business - 100 members appointed by the boards of the FTSE100 companies. It would save them the trouble of having to buy peerages.
A House of the Young could balance a House of the Old.
It might be better for some of the political disputes we have given institutional form, so that the necessary debates can happen more openly.
Not sure you're serious, but...I don't think that institutionalising different interests is a good idea as it will reinforce the sense of division. Also, preoccupations change over time - issues that seemed seminal differences look irrelevant 20 years later. For example, a House of Leavers and a House of Remainers might well reflect important current divisions, but in some years would look ridiculously archaic,
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
tbh I am not 100 per cent convinced that sheep jokes are very funny. Also, isn't Harry peripherally involved in this new royal cash for honours malarkey?
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
Weird. Why on earth would JCVI be passing around unpublished advice to the devolved nations? Something strange going on in Westminster politics that seems bad when you’re talking about health advice for kids.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
Why are hereditary peers any more rooted in the heritage of the nation than anyone else? What a ridiculously elitist notion. My ancestors maybe didn't kiss the arse of the King to obtain a title but I would bet they did more to contribute to this country through honest hard work and sacrifice than some lazy parasitic nobleman ensconced in his castle. As did yours, in all likelihood. When is this country going to move on from this absurd hat-doffing?
Peers family's have been responsible for preserving large areas of the country over centuries, and developing other parts of it.
Consider various Great Estates, or the more historic parts of London.
You wear a hat?
Preserving it for themselves during the enclosures and clearances by throwing my ancestors off the land they had tilled for centuries.
Weird. Why on earth would JCVI be passing around unpublished advice to the devolved nations? Something strange going on in Westminster politics that seems bad when you’re talking about health advice for kids.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
" ... but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university ..."
I'm in some sympathy .... but you surely realise a Labour Govt cannot & will not do this.
Because it will mean some serious redundancies in the Universities and it will mean some Universities going bankrupt.
Which party controls almost all the University seats?
There is such a thing as Realpolitik
That's not necessarily a straightforward argument - it's possible that the Labour party does not in fact benefit from having its voters artificially concentrated in locations like university dorm areas. Worse, elections in term time also means a large number of their potential activists are are bottled up together in a seat they're going to easily win anyway.
Oh, I am not saying it benefits Labour ...
Just that it will be hard for Labour to do because it will be directly harming its own supporters (by and large).
Given where we are, a substantial reduction in students going to University will mean some significant redundancies in the University sector.
Also some good news that seemed to slip under the radar - all covid regulations in Northern Ireland gone as of 5pm yesterday
Including the 5 days self isolation for positive cases which apparently never was a regulation in the first place, just guidance, but no one knew because "no one asked" - lol
Maybe we should get rid of the NI Executive and have ministers agree decisions by sending letters to each other - seems to lead to better outcomes such as this
Weird. Why on earth would JCVI be passing around unpublished advice to the devolved nations? Something strange going on in Westminster politics that seems bad when you’re talking about health advice for kids.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
To be fair they need to spread the support of the home nations around as it would I'm sure feed grievances if the royal family all supported England. Princess Anne I believe is a Scotland supporter as another example. Imagine being in a family where everyone had to support a different home nation! The Queen of course stays above it all by not overly supporting anyone and just congratulating when they do well.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
tbh I am not 100 per cent convinced that sheep jokes are very funny. Also, isn't Harry peripherally involved in this new royal cash for honours malarkey?
ETA also it is rugby so who cares?
Years of abuse from the Welsh at us humble English rugby union fans has taken its toll.
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
Glad to see this. I feel the world did not react strongly enough in 2014 and now it's really make or break in terms of facing down Vlad. We cannot afford another weak reaction or we could potentially be looking at WW3.
Not only that but with China ogling Taiwan as well. So so important IMO...
So the removal of any dependency on Russia, and the threat of sanctions that would absolutely pulverise Russia into the ground is vital, even if it costs Europe and the US $$...
What "hi-tech components" does Leyen mean? Pretty sure Vlad will be able to source what he needs from his mates in China.
Well... that is a good question. I hope it's something important. Personally I would go for the jugular and to hell with the costs. Pretty much cut them off from the world. CANNOT risk 1938. But like you say, need to find things that China can't bail them out over
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
Why are hereditary peers any more rooted in the heritage of the nation than anyone else? What a ridiculously elitist notion. My ancestors maybe didn't kiss the arse of the King to obtain a title but I would bet they did more to contribute to this country through honest hard work and sacrifice than some lazy parasitic nobleman ensconced in his castle. As did yours, in all likelihood. When is this country going to move on from this absurd hat-doffing?
Peers family's have been responsible for preserving large areas of the country over centuries, and developing other parts of it.
Consider various Great Estates, or the more historic parts of London.
You wear a hat?
Preserving it for themselves during the enclosures and clearances by throwing my ancestors off the land they had tilled for centuries.
We hang the man and flog the woman Who steals the goose from off the common. But leave the greater villain loose Who steals the common from the goose.
Doing my family history I'm somewhat puzzled as to the origins of my mothers maiden name, a very unusual one. Appears to originate in the East Midlands. There is a Stately Home of that name in Leicestershire, and there was once a village of the same name nearby. However, it appears that the village was demolished in the 18th C to enlarge the gardens of the Hall.
The other option is to go back to first principles. How did we end up with a House of Lords and a House of Commons? I believe this was so that there was a forum for the concerns of different groups in society to be discussed. There was a recognition that the Lords could not be represented by the Commons and the Commons could not be represented by the Lords.
Today we operate on an implicit assumption that we all have common interests which can be represented equally with a single vote apiece by representation in the Commons. Is this the case? Perhaps we should explicitly create different chambers, with different franchises, to represent different interest groups.
An honest approach might be to have a House of Big Business - 100 members appointed by the boards of the FTSE100 companies. It would save them the trouble of having to buy peerages.
A House of the Young could balance a House of the Old.
It might be better for some of the political disputes we have given institutional form, so that the necessary debates can happen more openly.
Not sure you're serious, but...I don't think that institutionalising different interests is a good idea as it will reinforce the sense of division. Also, preoccupations change over time - issues that seemed seminal differences look irrelevant 20 years later. For example, a House of Leavers and a House of Remainers might well reflect important current divisions, but in some years would look ridiculously archaic,
I like the sound of that.
We could save cash by having Liz Truss as Speaker of both
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
To be fair they need to spread the support of the home nations around as it would I'm sure feed grievances if the royal family all supported England. Princess Anne I believe is a Scotland supporter as another example. Imagine being in a family where everyone had to support a different home nation! The Queen of course stays above it all by not overly supporting anyone and just congratulating when they do well.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
tbh I am not 100 per cent convinced that sheep jokes are very funny. Also, isn't Harry peripherally involved in this new royal cash for honours malarkey?
ETA also it is rugby so who cares?
Years of abuse from the Welsh at us humble English rugby union fans has taken its toll.
Given the wealth of the English Rugby Union, the arrogance of its supporters, and the self-importance of its players, the superlative mediocrity of the England team has given great pleasure .... to the Welsh, Scots, Irish & French.
Covid may have lead to people more greatly prioritising their homes financially. But we should have been trying to stop this inflation. At some point a leader is going to have to spell out that we cannot fix our economic problems in the UK unless we sort out housing.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
The main problem our legislature has is that the Commons is now largely a partisan rubber stamp, in thrall to the PM and his whips, while the Lords is entirely lacking in legitimacy, and is very distant from the concerns of the public.
We need a body that has the legitimacy to block legislation from the Commons, but without creating a partisan logjam (which would be the result of an elected second chamber).
The answer is a Grand Jury, drawn from the population at random, to consider legislation.
The Grand Jury idea is similar to the Green Party concept of ctizens' assemblies - get 100 people together to discuss an issue and brief them really well so they understand the issue in depth. I see the attraction but it scares me as sometimes the 100 will by random selection be weighted to people who happen to have one or another obsession, in the same way that an opinion poll with a sample of 100 often throws up really weird results.
But the integral committee idea is good - I agree that my hypothetical asylum-seeker or ex-prisoner doesn't really need to be a voting member. Select Committees do try to invite a variety of opinions, but they tend to be establishment types, including the more serious NGOs. For example, a hearing on slaughterhouse conditions might well invite me, as an expert on animal welfare, but they'd be very unlikely to invite a slaughterhouse worker or even have any idea how to look for one.
As far as I understand this idea of a Grand Jury or Citizen's Assemblies is a major part of (political) anarchism, and is not too far away from the pre October Revolution idea of a Soviets.
I'm sure that you know more about this subject than me, so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
Weird. Why on earth would JCVI be passing around unpublished advice to the devolved nations? Something strange going on in Westminster politics that seems bad when you’re talking about health advice for kids.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
At this point it is all speculation. We have VDL going heavy on sanctions, Macaroons quasi-ineffective diplomacy....
There is no sign that Washington or London are interested in pressuring the Ukrainians into making concessions.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
tbh I am not 100 per cent convinced that sheep jokes are very funny. Also, isn't Harry peripherally involved in this new royal cash for honours malarkey?
ETA also it is rugby so who cares?
Years of abuse from the Welsh at us humble English rugby union fans has taken its toll.
Given the wealth of the English Rugby Union, the arrogance of its supporters, and the self-importance of its players, the superlative mediocrity of the England team has given great pleasure .... to the Welsh, Scots, Irish & French.
3 world cup finals in the last two decades, if you call that mediocre, I wonder what you call winning one of them.
I'm sure it pales in comparison to the number the Welsh, Scots, Irish, and French have all won.
Covid may have lead to people more greatly prioritising their homes financially. But we should have been trying to stop this inflation. At some point a leader is going to have to spell out that we cannot fix our economic problems in the UK unless we sort out housing.
General inflation has been high, so the real terms increase is less.
A 25 yr mortgage now costs the same as about one did back in Jan 1977 (Much higher real terms capital, way lower interest rates, & inflation stripped out).
Chart adjusted for inflation, interest rate + 1.5%.
It's amazing how music can transport you back to better and happier times and away from the shite of today. I'm not usually so backwards looking, yet I'm starting to think peak UK was the 90s. Since then it's all been down hill and poor long term planning is behind all of it, politicians of all stripes have been about winning tomorrow's vote and screwing the next generation in the process.
Sadly, I don't see how this stops, maybe we should have let COVID run riot among the over 70s and removed their stranglehold over UK life.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
Just like you his brother is clearly too dumb to realise the Royal Family are there for Wales just as much as for England. After all his father is Prince of the bloody place.
Anyway, we are all aware that you would much prefer President Boris.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
To be fair they need to spread the support of the home nations around as it would I'm sure feed grievances if the royal family all supported England. Princess Anne I believe is a Scotland supporter as another example. Imagine being in a family where everyone had to support a different home nation! The Queen of course stays above it all by not overly supporting anyone and just congratulating when they do well.
Exactly, the Queen is Queen of the whole UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. She is neutral when they play each other
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
tbh I am not 100 per cent convinced that sheep jokes are very funny. Also, isn't Harry peripherally involved in this new royal cash for honours malarkey?
ETA also it is rugby so who cares?
Years of abuse from the Welsh at us humble English rugby union fans has taken its toll.
Given the wealth of the English Rugby Union, the arrogance of its supporters, and the self-importance of its players, the superlative mediocrity of the England team has given great pleasure .... to the Welsh, Scots, Irish & French.
3 world cup finals in the last two decades, if you call that mediocre, I wonder what you call winning one of them.
I'm sure it pales in comparison to the number the Welsh, Scots, Irish, and French have all won.
I think maybe you need to factor in the wealth and resources of each country's Rugby Union ...
Still, If you're happy ... we are certainly all happy.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
Just like you his brother is clearly too dumb to realise the Royal Family are there for Wales just as much as for England. After all his father is Prince of the bloody place.
Anyway, we are all aware that you would much prefer President Boris.
Boaty McBoatface tells you this country wouldn't vote for President Boris Johnson, we'd end up with President Brian Blessed, which would be awesome.
Just imagine the President's speech every Christmas Day delivered by Brian Blessed.
But I prefer elected rulers, take back control from our unelected rulers.
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
Earlier than usual but here is the line up for local by-elections tomorrow. Very unusually there are 4 Independents defences; in Allerdale, Newark and Sherwood, Nottinghamshire, and West Devon. There are also 2 Conservative defences ( NE Lincolnshire and North Northamptonshire), a Labour defence in Bristol, a Lib Dem defence in Oadby and Wigton, and a Green defence in Mid Suffolk.
It's amazing how music can transport you back to better and happier times and away from the shite of today. I'm not usually so backwards looking, yet I'm starting to think peak UK was the 90s. Since then it's all been down hill and poor long term planning is behind all of it, politicians of all stripes have been about winning tomorrow's vote and screwing the next generation in the process.
Sadly, I don't see how this stops, maybe we should have let COVID run riot among the over 70s and removed their stranglehold over UK life.
Nah. The 90s were just as bad. The last PM who actually cared about running the country rather than simply winning elections was Thatcher.
And everyone knows the last decades of decent music were the 65-85. It really has been all downhill since then.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
The main problem our legislature has is that the Commons is now largely a partisan rubber stamp, in thrall to the PM and his whips, while the Lords is entirely lacking in legitimacy, and is very distant from the concerns of the public.
We need a body that has the legitimacy to block legislation from the Commons, but without creating a partisan logjam (which would be the result of an elected second chamber).
The answer is a Grand Jury, drawn from the population at random, to consider legislation.
The Grand Jury idea is similar to the Green Party concept of ctizens' assemblies - get 100 people together to discuss an issue and brief them really well so they understand the issue in depth. I see the attraction but it scares me as sometimes the 100 will by random selection be weighted to people who happen to have one or another obsession, in the same way that an opinion poll with a sample of 100 often throws up really weird results.
But the integral committee idea is good - I agree that my hypothetical asylum-seeker or ex-prisoner doesn't really need to be a voting member. Select Committees do try to invite a variety of opinions, but they tend to be establishment types, including the more serious NGOs. For example, a hearing on slaughterhouse conditions might well invite me, as an expert on animal welfare, but they'd be very unlikely to invite a slaughterhouse worker or even have any idea how to look for one.
IMO Grand Juries and Citizens' Assemblies are far too open to manipulation by appointed 'experts', and may only offer a selection of an approved set of opinions. Randomly selected citizens may not have the skills to resist such manipulation.
The real Grand Juries ("should this person be charged") only aiui exist properly in the USA now, where to me they resemble a posse going out on the hunt with the Public Prosecutor in the role of Sheriff.
There are reasons why other countries have moved on to a better system of determining whether a prosecution is tenable. Another backwards aspect of the USA legal system, for me.
IIRC Grand Juries in the US return a bill of indictment in well over 90% of cases. It’s something of a news item when a Grand Jury declines to indict in even a not-so-prominent case.
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
NI on pensions and a state pension taper to zero based on other income. That will legitimately raise billions and cut tens of billions out of spending and allow us to be more generous to less wealthy pensioners who maybe didn't have careers that afford them retirement income of £30-40k+ per year.
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
A 10% increase in house prices corresponds to a 1.3% drop in birth rates, further compounding our demographic problem.
Though really you don't need a source, it's just common sense. If people can't afford the space, or ever afford to get out of the rental trap, they can't afford kids.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
Just like you his brother is clearly too dumb to realise the Royal Family are there for Wales just as much as for England. After all his father is Prince of the bloody place.
Anyway, we are all aware that you would much prefer President Boris.
Boaty McBoatface tells you this country wouldn't vote for President Boris Johnson, we'd end up with President Brian Blessed, which would be awesome.
Just imagine the President's speech every Christmas Day delivered by Brian Blessed.
But I prefer elected rulers, take back control from our unelected rulers.
Nope. President Boris is nailed on. He would be in a run-off with Corbyn. You just can't stand to admit it.
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
NI on pensions and a state pension taper to zero based on other income. That will legitimately raise billions and cut tens of billions out of spending and allow us to be more generous to less wealthy pensioners who maybe didn't have careers that afford them retirement income of £30-40k+ per year.
I paid more tax in “tax haven” Guernsey on my pension than I do in the U.K…..
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
It's a tad worrying that it takes a crisis like this to learn such a lesson. I would have thought that it has long been obvious that we cannot trust the Russian government.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
tbh I am not 100 per cent convinced that sheep jokes are very funny. Also, isn't Harry peripherally involved in this new royal cash for honours malarkey?
ETA also it is rugby so who cares?
Years of abuse from the Welsh at us humble English rugby union fans has taken its toll.
Given the wealth of the English Rugby Union, the arrogance of its supporters, and the self-importance of its players, the superlative mediocrity of the England team has given great pleasure .... to the Welsh, Scots, Irish & French.
3 world cup finals in the last two decades, if you call that mediocre, I wonder what you call winning one of them.
I'm sure it pales in comparison to the number the Welsh, Scots, Irish, and French have all won.
A lucky Johnny Wilkinson drop goal has been dined out on at the bars of England for the last 19 years.
As far as I understand this idea of a Grand Jury or Citizen's Assemblies is a major part of (political) anarchism, and is not too far away from the pre October Revolution idea of a Soviets.
I'm sure that you know more about this subject than me, so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
Not sure I do! Anarchism is historically interesting since it combines elements of right-wing individualist philosophy (no central state telling us what to do) with bottom-up far-left thinking - workers' control of their factories, etc. I don't think many people nowadays pursue it seriously as a central part of their thinking, but as you say the spirit lives on in the Citizens' Assembly idea and the like.
I'm a collectivist/democrat (choose your label) by instinct, and prefer the idea of society as a whole choosing a direction and all of us more or less enthusiastically pursuing it. In crisis situations it's essential to have a clear decision that applies to everyone - the (possibly apocryphal?) stories of anarchist units in the Spanish Civil War having a debate and a vote before each battle to decide whether to take part (so nobody else in the line knew whether to rely on them) illustrate the point.
But there are countless examples of bad decisions taken centrally which could have been mitigated or avoided by local decision-making, and clearly people feel more engaged with that than in instructions coming down from On High. I used to be more centralist than I am now. Provisionally I now prefer the Swiss approach - lots of referenda at each appropriate level (town/canton/national), so the people as a whole make the decisions rather than little randomly-chosen groups, but it's not limited to casting a vote for a party every 5 years.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
Just like you his brother is clearly too dumb to realise the Royal Family are there for Wales just as much as for England. After all his father is Prince of the bloody place.
Anyway, we are all aware that you would much prefer President Boris.
100% absolutely.
A bad President can be removed (see: Trump) much easier than a bad Monarch can be.
Earlier than usual but here is the line up for local by-elections tomorrow. Very unusually there are 4 Independents defences; in Allerdale, Newark and Sherwood, Nottinghamshire, and West Devon. There are also 2 Conservative defences ( NE Lincolnshire and North Northamptonshire), a Labour defence in Bristol, a Lib Dem defence in Oadby and Wigton, and a Green defence in Mid Suffolk.
Wow. Quite the testing ground… of wether Libdems are just as popular as last week, or even more popular this week! 😁
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
tbh I am not 100 per cent convinced that sheep jokes are very funny. Also, isn't Harry peripherally involved in this new royal cash for honours malarkey?
ETA also it is rugby so who cares?
Years of abuse from the Welsh at us humble English rugby union fans has taken its toll.
Aw, did someone finally let you in on what “twll dyn pob Sais” means?
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
It's a tad worrying that it takes a crisis like this to learn such a lesson. I would have thought that it has long been obvious that we cannot trust the Russian government.
Do we take her on her word they are ready, just because we like the sound of it? Or is it a case of, she would claim that today wouldn’t she?
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
Facts on the ground though. Is there any more possibility of Ukraine getting the Donbass back than the Palestinians getting the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
A 10% increase in house prices corresponds to a 1.3% drop in birth rates, further compounding our demographic problem.
Though really you don't need a source, it's just common sense. If people can't afford the space, or ever afford to get out of the rental trap, they can't afford kids.
Rents are the real scandal in the UK. I mean in theory it should be mortgage interest cost + cost of repairs & maintenance + some small profit/admin. The mortgage interest cost is very low, repairs are - well plenty of landlords don't seem too bothered about those.. The profit/admin is generally huge.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
At this point it is all speculation. We have VDL going heavy on sanctions, Macaroons quasi-ineffective diplomacy....
There is no sign that Washington or London are interested in pressuring the Ukrainians into making concessions.
Yes I agree no sign of it. No sign of it either way though. Do we have enough evidence to know London and Washington aren’t on same page as Berlin and Paris behind the scenes. Though this is the area to watch, we are thankful to Carlotta for flagging this up.
US and UK could be remaining silent whilst the Germans and French do the pressing for them? Washington and London sold out the Czechs in 1945, London had already done that to the Czechs in 1938! But no. As Ben Wallace suggested “whiff of Munich” it must be France and Germany he was referring to, not his own policy. So Think I agree with you.
But What’s the possibility Germany, France, US, UK and Ukraine all decide to implement the pleblicite and border changes? Zero possibility? Is it appeasement. Surrendering to aggression? Or more complicated than that in bigger security picture?
Does that explain why London and Washington remain silent on this?
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
Just like you his brother is clearly too dumb to realise the Royal Family are there for Wales just as much as for England. After all his father is Prince of the bloody place.
Anyway, we are all aware that you would much prefer President Boris.
100% absolutely.
A bad President can be removed (see: Trump) much easier than a bad Monarch can be.
Trump nearly had a successful coup to remain in power in 2020.
Bad monarchs rarely matter given we have constitutional monarchs not an absolute monarch anyway. In any case an Act of Parliament can replace one monarch by the next in the line of succession as at the Abdication.
A bad President however like the US President has far more impact on most peoples' lives.
It's amazing how music can transport you back to better and happier times and away from the shite of today. I'm not usually so backwards looking, yet I'm starting to think peak UK was the 90s. Since then it's all been down hill and poor long term planning is behind all of it, politicians of all stripes have been about winning tomorrow's vote and screwing the next generation in the process.
Sadly, I don't see how this stops, maybe we should have let COVID run riot among the over 70s and removed their stranglehold over UK life.
Nah. The 90s were just as bad. The last PM who actually cared about running the country rather than simply winning elections was Thatcher.
And everyone knows the last decades of decent music were the 65-85. It really has been all downhill since then.
The 90s were the peak because they were the result of Mrs Thatcher's long term thinking. Since then it's been a pile of shite because from Major to Boris we've had leaders who care more about winning tomorrow's vote (parliamentary or elections) rather than what they want the country to look like 20 years from now.
The 90s had incredible music, if you can't appreciate it then that's on you, though I'm very happy to listen to 70s and 80s as well. As someone who grew up in the 90s it's not surprising that I rate it!
The other option is to go back to first principles. How did we end up with a House of Lords and a House of Commons? I believe this was so that there was a forum for the concerns of different groups in society to be discussed. There was a recognition that the Lords could not be represented by the Commons and the Commons could not be represented by the Lords.
Today we operate on an implicit assumption that we all have common interests which can be represented equally with a single vote apiece by representation in the Commons. Is this the case? Perhaps we should explicitly create different chambers, with different franchises, to represent different interest groups.
An honest approach might be to have a House of Big Business - 100 members appointed by the boards of the FTSE100 companies. It would save them the trouble of having to buy peerages.
A House of the Young could balance a House of the Old.
It might be better for some of the political disputes we have given institutional form, so that the necessary debates can happen more openly.
Not sure you're serious, but...I don't think that institutionalising different interests is a good idea as it will reinforce the sense of division. Also, preoccupations change over time - issues that seemed seminal differences look irrelevant 20 years later. For example, a House of Leavers and a House of Remainers might well reflect important current divisions, but in some years would look ridiculously archaic,
Corporatism, where different interests are directly represented in at least one house of a legislature was briefly popular in the 1920s and -30s. It’s not necessarily a bad idea in and of itself but got irredeemably associated with the people that liked to wear single-coloured shirts during that era. The Irish retain vestiges of it in Seanad Éireann, with most senators being elected (by TDs and local councillors) through association with “vocational panels” such as agriculture, cultue and commerce.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
Tovey, who uses his car to commute to work, has seen the cost of diesel rise sharply and is concerned that his pay packet will not keep up with the surge in gas and electricity bills due in April. “I’m quite fearful of how I’m going to manage,” he said.
He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
Having gone to university to become a nurse, Tovey says he probably earns more than other people but is still struggling. “It feels like if I’ve worked hard and gone into a profession to better myself, and I’m in this position, how the hell are other people coping?
“It impacts on your mental health, there’s nowhere to turn. You’re caught between a rock and a hard place and you wonder, when are we going to have a break?”
This week British bankers will start collecting the biggest bonuses since before the 2008 global financial crisis as their employers fight an “increasingly intense war for talent”.
As most Britons face the biggest squeeze on their incomes since at least 1990, already very highly paid bankers are celebrating “particularly obscene” bonuses in the City’s pubs and wine bars.
“We have had quite the run on champagne – the poshest champagne we stock,” says James, a bartender at the New Moon on the streets of Leadenhall Market near the headquarters of many of the City of London’s banks. “They come here to celebrate when they get told their ‘number’ – the numbers seem to have been particularly obscene this year.”
...
The bumper bonuses will tip several hundred more UK bankers into the EU’s “high earners” warning report which details every banker earning more than €1m (£835,000) a year. The European Banking Authority (EBA) found that 3,519 bankers working in the UK earned more than €1m-a-year last year – more than seven times as many as those working in Germany which has the second highest number of €1m-a-year bankers.
The EBA figures show 27 UK bankers earned more than €10m in 2019 (the latest year available). Two UK-based asset managers were paid between €38m and €39m, and one merchant banker was paid €64.8m. That banker received fixed pay of €242,000, topped up with a bonus of €64.6m.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
The Guardian appears to be unaware that Merthyr Tydfil is in Wales, that health is devolved, and that pay and conditions are the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
The joys of "lets keep people stupid" politics. The Tory tactics during austerity was cut nationally and pass the blame locally. The idea being that they gut the finances of Labour councils and then get voted in with the Labour councillors getting the blame. It worked - so many people had no clue how funding worked.
So here it isn't The Guardian that is ignorant of how things work, it is the *voter*. Exactly what the Tories wanted.
And indeed, some googling reveals Matthew Tovey hardly to be an ignorant average "voter".
My guess from Tovey's social media profile and the images of him with Jeremy Corbyn is he may not be entirely a political naif.
I am not sure that it would be the greatest strategy in the world for the Tories to claim there is not a serious cost of living crisis for millions of working people people across the UK.
I am not a Tory strategist.
My only point is that the Welsh NHS is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
Yep and you're right. But pointing that out to angry voters in Wales won't do the Tories any favours. People have been worked hard by the media for a decade to not understand stuff, and unfortunately that is going to bite them on the arse hard.
What could also be a key issue in many rural / far flung / poorer areas is the axing of regional development monies. The EU cash has gone and the pledge to match it dropped. Many places will be viscerally and visibly poorer because of it, just at the time as the cost of living squeeze pinches hardest and the Tories try to parade Brexit benefits.
When the government itself demonstrates that it doesn't know how stuff works they can hardly complain that their voters are just as ignorant.
The EU cash was not spent to any great benefit of the residents of Merthyr Tydfil. There was EU cash in Wales, but the beneficiaries were people/institutions that knew how to work the system.
Where I do agree with you is that the increased cost of living will hurt the Government. In fact, my guess is that is why Johnson is still in place, to take some of the hit.
As regards Matthew Tovey, after rummaging around his extensive media profile, I rather like the guy -- but he is clearly on the "Starmer Out" wing of the Labour party
What he is not is an average, politically disengaged voter from Merthyr Tydfil, as the Guardian present him.
And the Guardian keep on making this mistake -- picking something wrong with the Welsh NHS and blaming the Tories. Time they learnt.
Does the Welsh Government have significant tax raising powers, like we do up here in Scotland?
I appreciate that borrowing is important, but while SC/WA are in Union with England all that really means is borrowing off the English given the tax/expenditure differential.
@RochdalePioneers is wrong to suggest that voters have been hoodwinked by devolution. If they are holding the SG etc to account, while they have tax powers, then it's working exactly as it should.
I was suggesting no such thing. Voters have been hoodwinked by a decade-long misinformation campaign by the Tories to pin all the blame on service provision onto localities regardless of where the money comes from.
The plan - and it has been a success - was to destroy local government finance through removal of the government grant then blame councils for the local destruction of services provided by councils using the government grant.
Now that voters have been educated to not understand the flow of money it is quite funny that this is now in reverse with the Westminster government blamed for things it doesn't control. They can't complain - they wanted voters who were ignorant of reality.
@RochdalePioneers,old chap. The SNP are doing exactly the same thing up here. Holyrood is implementing real-time cuts to local government, despite the block grant from Westminster going up. . All 32 councils complained, even SNP-led ones. Meanwhile money is spaffed away on free bicycles, baby-boxes etc. All govts do this TBF.
Sure! And when the anger finally hits the SNP government for things they haven't done they will have only themselves to blame. I do keep pointing out that I'm not an SNP fanboi (I'm a LD candidate for Aberdeenshire council so running * against* them).
My point was simply that people in devolved areas blaming Westminster for devolved policies is a quite funny outcome.
WEll quite and Aberdeenshire has been a particular example of SNP malign neglect. Good Luck!
I am a paper candidate in a ward a long way down our target list. It would be a beautiful place to go canvass if I had time...
Go and knock as many doors as you can, and get yourself known. In local elections, more people vote for someone they recognise than someone they haven’t heard of. Also more people vote for the person, rather than the party, in local elections than in national elections. You may surprise yourself, and your party organisation. This assumes you would actually be able to give the necessary time to the job.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
Facts on the ground though. Is there any more possibility of Ukraine getting the Donbass back than the Palestinians getting the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
Should these things ever be surrendered as an aim though?
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
Just like you his brother is clearly too dumb to realise the Royal Family are there for Wales just as much as for England. After all his father is Prince of the bloody place.
Anyway, we are all aware that you would much prefer President Boris.
William will inherit that title as well when Charles ascends to the throne, so supporting Wales makes some kind of sense.
It's amazing how music can transport you back to better and happier times and away from the shite of today. I'm not usually so backwards looking, yet I'm starting to think peak UK was the 90s. Since then it's all been down hill and poor long term planning is behind all of it, politicians of all stripes have been about winning tomorrow's vote and screwing the next generation in the process.
Sadly, I don't see how this stops, maybe we should have let COVID run riot among the over 70s and removed their stranglehold over UK life.
Nah. The 90s were just as bad. The last PM who actually cared about running the country rather than simply winning elections was Thatcher.
And everyone knows the last decades of decent music were the 65-85. It really has been all downhill since then.
The 90s were the peak because they were the result of Mrs Thatcher's long term thinking. Since then it's been a pile of shite because from Major to Boris we've had leaders who care more about winning tomorrow's vote (parliamentary or elections) rather than what they want the country to look like 20 years from now.
The 90s had incredible music, if you can't appreciate it then that's on you, though I'm very happy to listen to 70s and 80s as well. As someone who grew up in the 90s it's not surprising that I rate it!
I don't see pressure from voters as being a bad thing. Many's the war we've avoided or the grotesquely huge expensive project we've scrapped, or the freedom we've gained because politicians knew that they had to win an election.
I believe that the fundamentals of the UK, both in terms of the creativity and resourcefulness of our people and physical and geographical factors give us every chance of thriving in the 21st century. We need a decent, un-fussy, competent Government that tries to get out of peoples' way rather than get in peoples' faces.
I'm a bit of a sucker for the 90's myself mind. Pop culture-wise it was a bit of a sweet spot. Appreciate the 80's too - only bits of the 70's and 60's.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
At this point it is all speculation. We have VDL going heavy on sanctions, Macaroons quasi-ineffective diplomacy....
There is no sign that Washington or London are interested in pressuring the Ukrainians into making concessions.
As with Catalonia, at some point Ukraine will need a realistic way of dealing with a culturally distinct region, which can't seriously be "we're governing you from the centre, suck it up and learn to speak Ukrainian" unless they want internal confrontation forever. The Minsk deal giving regional autonomy, as in Scotland, looks a reasonable alternative to plebiscites on secession a la Slesvig, but is politically difficult while it's perceived to be a projection of Russian military menace. It's not up to us (or Russia) to tell them what to do, but we (and Germany/France) can reasonably say it'd be good if they hinted at a viable plan that takes some account of the minority.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
At this point it is all speculation. We have VDL going heavy on sanctions, Macaroons quasi-ineffective diplomacy....
There is no sign that Washington or London are interested in pressuring the Ukrainians into making concessions.
Yes I agree no sign of it. No sign of it either way though. Do we have enough evidence to know London and Washington aren’t on same page as Berlin and Paris behind the scenes. Though this is the area to watch, we are thankful to Carlotta for flagging this up.
US and UK could be remaining silent whilst the Germans and French do the pressing for them? Washington and London sold out the Czechs in 1945, London had already done that to the Czechs in 1938! But no. As Ben Wallace suggested “whiff of Munich” it must be France and Germany he was referring to, not his own policy. So Think I agree with you.
But What’s the possibility Germany, France, US, UK and Ukraine all decide to implement the pleblicite and border changes? Zero possibility? Is it appeasement. Surrendering to aggression? Or more complicated than that in bigger security picture?
Does that explain why London and Washington remain silent on this?
To pressure Ukraine to accept this is to invoke Munich. Why should London and Washington go that road?
Note that the Ukrainian comments on this are specific to who they think is doing this.
Banks could blow all the BTLers out the water. Offer interest only on OO held property stock (At 75% LTV it would be safe enough). Higher LTVs could be sold where the bank takes a cut of the appreciation (To cover depreciation risk), to the Daddy of mortgages - 100% LTV mortgage with the bank holding all the capital risk/reward. Basically renting from the bank directly without the middle man.
Banks could blow all the BTLers out the water. Offer interest only on OO held property stock (At 75% LTV it would be safe enough). Higher LTVs could be sold where the bank takes a cut of the appreciation (To cover depreciation risk), to the Daddy of mortgages - 100% LTV mortgage with the bank holding all the capital risk/reward. Basically renting from the bank directly without the middle man.
Banks could blow all the BTLers out the water. Offer interest only on OO held property stock (At 75% LTV it would be safe enough). Higher LTVs could be sold where the bank takes a cut of the appreciation (To cover depreciation risk), to the Daddy of mortgages - 100% LTV mortgage with the bank holding all the capital risk/reward. Basically renting from the bank directly without the middle man.
Northern Rock?
Not the same concept, my idea is for the banks to offer 100% OO interest only mortgages with the bank taking on the risk/reward of capital appreciation.
Not a great day for the monarchy. Just need Anne and Edward for a full house.
William is going to have his work cut out.
William is a disgrace, his brother should be King, this picture tells you why.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
tbh I am not 100 per cent convinced that sheep jokes are very funny. Also, isn't Harry peripherally involved in this new royal cash for honours malarkey?
ETA also it is rugby so who cares?
Years of abuse from the Welsh at us humble English rugby union fans has taken its toll.
Given the wealth of the English Rugby Union, the arrogance of its supporters, and the self-importance of its players, the superlative mediocrity of the England team has given great pleasure .... to the Welsh, Scots, Irish & French.
3 world cup finals in the last two decades, if you call that mediocre, I wonder what you call winning one of them.
I'm sure it pales in comparison to the number the Welsh, Scots, Irish, and French have all won.
I think maybe you need to factor in the wealth and resources of each country's Rugby Union ...
Still, If you're happy ... we are certainly all happy.
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
A 10% increase in house prices corresponds to a 1.3% drop in birth rates, further compounding our demographic problem.
Though really you don't need a source, it's just common sense. If people can't afford the space, or ever afford to get out of the rental trap, they can't afford kids.
Rents are the real scandal in the UK. I mean in theory it should be mortgage interest cost + cost of repairs & maintenance + some small profit/admin. The mortgage interest cost is very low, repairs are - well plenty of landlords don't seem too bothered about those.. The profit/admin is generally huge.
The rental situation is only going to get worse though. The new rules and regs mean that many people who were renting out the Granny flat are now pulling out of that market. It is rapidly collapsing as the costs make it no longer viable.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
Facts on the ground though. Is there any more possibility of Ukraine getting the Donbass back than the Palestinians getting the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
Should these things ever be surrendered as an aim though?
The choice for Ukraine is either some sort of regional autonomy and a permanent Russian influence in their government, or getting shot of them behind new borders with a more Ukranian majority. Crimea is even less likely to return.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
At this point it is all speculation. We have VDL going heavy on sanctions, Macaroons quasi-ineffective diplomacy....
There is no sign that Washington or London are interested in pressuring the Ukrainians into making concessions.
As with Catalonia, at some point Ukraine will need a realistic way of dealing with a culturally distinct region, which can't seriously be "we're governing you from the centre, suck it up and learn to speak Ukrainian" unless they want internal confrontation forever. The Minsk deal giving regional autonomy, as in Scotland, looks a reasonable alternative to plebiscites on secession a la Slesvig, but is politically difficult while it's perceived to be a projection of Russian military menace. It's not up to us (or Russia) to tell them what to do, but we (and Germany/France) can reasonably say it'd be good if they hinted at a viable plan that takes some account of the minority.
Should the Palestinians be "realistic" about accepting the Isreal has settled the land, now?
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
A 10% increase in house prices corresponds to a 1.3% drop in birth rates, further compounding our demographic problem.
Though really you don't need a source, it's just common sense. If people can't afford the space, or ever afford to get out of the rental trap, they can't afford kids.
Rents are the real scandal in the UK. I mean in theory it should be mortgage interest cost + cost of repairs & maintenance + some small profit/admin. The mortgage interest cost is very low, repairs are - well plenty of landlords don't seem too bothered about those.. The profit/admin is generally huge.
The rental situation is only going to get worse though. The new rules and regs mean that many people who were renting out the Granny flat are now pulling out of that market. It is rapidly collapsing as the costs make it no longer viable.
And interest costs not fully tax deductable either so there's a sizeable tax wedge in rents too.
Banks could blow all the BTLers out the water. Offer interest only on OO held property stock (At 75% LTV it would be safe enough). Higher LTVs could be sold where the bank takes a cut of the appreciation (To cover depreciation risk), to the Daddy of mortgages - 100% LTV mortgage with the bank holding all the capital risk/reward. Basically renting from the bank directly without the middle man.
Northern Rock?
Not the same concept, my idea is for the banks to offer 100% OO interest only mortgages with the bank taking on the risk/reward of capital appreciation.
Well that's what the repossession is for, what's to stop the owner remortgaging 5 years later on a traditional mortgage? I'm not a huge defender of landlords, yet I'd be pretty worried if banks decided to offer products that turned them into landlords, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
I can't imagine the mess of derivatives that would come into being with that kind of mortgage asset.
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
At this point it is all speculation. We have VDL going heavy on sanctions, Macaroons quasi-ineffective diplomacy....
There is no sign that Washington or London are interested in pressuring the Ukrainians into making concessions.
As with Catalonia, at some point Ukraine will need a realistic way of dealing with a culturally distinct region, which can't seriously be "we're governing you from the centre, suck it up and learn to speak Ukrainian" unless they want internal confrontation forever. The Minsk deal giving regional autonomy, as in Scotland, looks a reasonable alternative to plebiscites on secession a la Slesvig, but is politically difficult while it's perceived to be a projection of Russian military menace. It's not up to us (or Russia) to tell them what to do, but we (and Germany/France) can reasonably say it'd be good if they hinted at a viable plan that takes some account of the minority.
They will, but the Minsk accords are based on the premise of the Russian occupied regions within the Ukraine border returning to Ukrainian control. Any plan is viable only once Ukraine's borders are guaranteed by all sides including Russia. A settlement with only Ukraine giving ground isn't a settlement at all.
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
A 10% increase in house prices corresponds to a 1.3% drop in birth rates, further compounding our demographic problem.
Though really you don't need a source, it's just common sense. If people can't afford the space, or ever afford to get out of the rental trap, they can't afford kids.
Rents are the real scandal in the UK. I mean in theory it should be mortgage interest cost + cost of repairs & maintenance + some small profit/admin. The mortgage interest cost is very low, repairs are - well plenty of landlords don't seem too bothered about those.. The profit/admin is generally huge.
The rental situation is only going to get worse though. The new rules and regs mean that many people who were renting out the Granny flat are now pulling out of that market. It is rapidly collapsing as the costs make it no longer viable.
What costs - do you mean current house prices make the returns utterly pointless or the forthcoming refurbishment costs to meet the new standards that Gove wants to create?
Banks could blow all the BTLers out the water. Offer interest only on OO held property stock (At 75% LTV it would be safe enough). Higher LTVs could be sold where the bank takes a cut of the appreciation (To cover depreciation risk), to the Daddy of mortgages - 100% LTV mortgage with the bank holding all the capital risk/reward. Basically renting from the bank directly without the middle man.
A way better plan is for pension funds to build to rent....
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
At this point it is all speculation. We have VDL going heavy on sanctions, Macaroons quasi-ineffective diplomacy....
There is no sign that Washington or London are interested in pressuring the Ukrainians into making concessions.
As with Catalonia, at some point Ukraine will need a realistic way of dealing with a culturally distinct region, which can't seriously be "we're governing you from the centre, suck it up and learn to speak Ukrainian" unless they want internal confrontation forever. The Minsk deal giving regional autonomy, as in Scotland, looks a reasonable alternative to plebiscites on secession a la Slesvig, but is politically difficult while it's perceived to be a projection of Russian military menace. It's not up to us (or Russia) to tell them what to do, but we (and Germany/France) can reasonably say it'd be good if they hinted at a viable plan that takes some account of the minority.
They will, but the Minsk accords are based on the premise of the Russian occupied regions within the Ukraine border returning to Ukrainian control. Any plan is viable only once Ukraine's borders are guaranteed by all sides including Russia. A settlement with only Ukraine giving ground isn't a settlement at all.
At the moment it is like the "peace deals" during the Yugoslav Wars - The international community kept demanding people sign an agreement, and the Serbs kept on creating "facts on the ground"
The leaders of France and Germany tried to push Ukraine to comply with the Russian spin of the Minsk Agreements during their recent visits to Kyiv, sources in the Ukrainian government and foreign emissaries told the Kyiv Independent.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
Because any settlement is better than war for France and Germany.
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
My suspicion is the current Ukraine President doesn’t survive if he succumbs to this pressure, there has to be more hawks on the territory boundaries of Ukraine in Kiev than to allow the Donetsk and Luhansk Pleblicites on autonomy that inevitably changes the border of the country. Are we in a position now where the German and French governments want to see those plebiscite and border changes believing it helps long term settle the issues? while Washington and London definitely oppose those pleblicites and the border changes? To be honest no, we can’t say that. Because Washington and London so silent on those pleblicites, we can’t say they definitely oppose Germany and France on this, is it accurate to say?
At this point it is all speculation. We have VDL going heavy on sanctions, Macaroons quasi-ineffective diplomacy....
There is no sign that Washington or London are interested in pressuring the Ukrainians into making concessions.
As with Catalonia, at some point Ukraine will need a realistic way of dealing with a culturally distinct region, which can't seriously be "we're governing you from the centre, suck it up and learn to speak Ukrainian" unless they want internal confrontation forever. The Minsk deal giving regional autonomy, as in Scotland, looks a reasonable alternative to plebiscites on secession a la Slesvig, but is politically difficult while it's perceived to be a projection of Russian military menace. It's not up to us (or Russia) to tell them what to do, but we (and Germany/France) can reasonably say it'd be good if they hinted at a viable plan that takes some account of the minority.
They will, but the Minsk accords are based on the premise of the Russian occupied regions within the Ukraine border returning to Ukrainian control. Any plan is viable only once Ukraine's borders are guaranteed by all sides including Russia. A settlement with only Ukraine giving ground isn't a settlement at all.
Nick is happily just repeating the French/EU position. Ukraine gives everything up and the agreement doesn't bind Russia anyway. Macron has shifted the discussion onto Ukrainian concessions without extracting anything from Putin. Completely idiotic.
Banks could blow all the BTLers out the water. Offer interest only on OO held property stock (At 75% LTV it would be safe enough). Higher LTVs could be sold where the bank takes a cut of the appreciation (To cover depreciation risk), to the Daddy of mortgages - 100% LTV mortgage with the bank holding all the capital risk/reward. Basically renting from the bank directly without the middle man.
Northern Rock?
Not the same concept, my idea is for the banks to offer 100% OO interest only mortgages with the bank taking on the risk/reward of capital appreciation.
Well that's what the repossession is for, what's to stop the owner remortgaging 5 years later on a traditional mortgage? I'm not a huge defender of landlords, yet I'd be pretty worried if banks decided to offer products that turned them into landlords, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
I can't imagine the mess of derivatives that would come into being with that kind of mortgage asset.
When I remortgaged, the new bank gave a (slightly increased) valuation. Borrower would have to cover the difference to remortgage. Ts & Cs of the mortgage would cover borrower not covering general repairs/deliberately trashing the property to lower value. Various derivatives are sold with all mortgages anyway. The point about this mortgage would be it would be suitable for general renters - takes the Landlord middle man out the picture.
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
A 10% increase in house prices corresponds to a 1.3% drop in birth rates, further compounding our demographic problem.
Though really you don't need a source, it's just common sense. If people can't afford the space, or ever afford to get out of the rental trap, they can't afford kids.
Rents are the real scandal in the UK. I mean in theory it should be mortgage interest cost + cost of repairs & maintenance + some small profit/admin. The mortgage interest cost is very low, repairs are - well plenty of landlords don't seem too bothered about those.. The profit/admin is generally huge.
The rental situation is only going to get worse though. The new rules and regs mean that many people who were renting out the Granny flat are now pulling out of that market. It is rapidly collapsing as the costs make it no longer viable.
On topic: glad to see the general level of disgust at rich man's "justice"
Yes - lots of disgust being expressed.
Justice would have meant a criminal trial where the allegations could be properly tested.
But when I pointed this out on here weeks ago and the inappropriateness of having such serious matters decided in civil proceedings, I was told off by many on here, that Giuffre had every right to make a claim, blah blah
And yet the end result is completely unsatisfactory: she has got some money, she has not got any admission of guilt or an apology from him, if guilty he has not been convicted and properly punished, if innocent he has not cleared his name and the promise to help sex trafficking victims is meaningless since he's retired from public life and will not be allowed to resume it.
It is a complete mess and exactly what those who cheered Ms Giuffre on were warned was likely to happen.
If a man commits rape he should be in prison. If he is innocent he should not have his good character attacked in this way or have to pay out....
This though (a bit like your solution to the trans issue) assumes things which simply don't exist, and aren't likely to anytime soon even with governments more competent than the one we now have. Looking at the rates for prosecution and conviction for sex crimes which aren't decades old, the chances of getting justice appear quite low. What are the prospects in a case like this ?
Has anything changed for the better ? Andrew has at least now decided he regrets his friendship with Epstein.
I prefer to find solutions to the problems we have rather than come up with proposals which do not solve those issues and create even bigger problems. That applies to both criminal justice and trans issues.
Creating more problems is never the right answer. We can learn this the quick way or the hard way.
Banks could blow all the BTLers out the water. Offer interest only on OO held property stock (At 75% LTV it would be safe enough). Higher LTVs could be sold where the bank takes a cut of the appreciation (To cover depreciation risk), to the Daddy of mortgages - 100% LTV mortgage with the bank holding all the capital risk/reward. Basically renting from the bank directly without the middle man.
Northern Rock?
Not the same concept, my idea is for the banks to offer 100% OO interest only mortgages with the bank taking on the risk/reward of capital appreciation.
Well that's what the repossession is for, what's to stop the owner remortgaging 5 years later on a traditional mortgage? I'm not a huge defender of landlords, yet I'd be pretty worried if banks decided to offer products that turned them into landlords, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
I can't imagine the mess of derivatives that would come into being with that kind of mortgage asset.
Banks are already going into rental investment.
We all know about Legal and General. Also Lloyds (50k homes), and ..er.. John Lewis.
Comments
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/met-launches-probe-prince-charles-cash-for-honours/
https://kyivindependent.com/national/sources-germany-france-ask-zelensky-to-comply-with-russias-spin-of-minsk-agreements/
Not only that but with China ogling Taiwan as well. So so important IMO...
So the removal of any dependency on Russia, and the threat of sanctions that would absolutely pulverise Russia into the ground is vital, even if it costs Europe and the US $$...
The real Grand Juries ("should this person be charged") only aiui exist properly in the USA now, where to me they resemble a posse going out on the hunt with the Public Prosecutor in the role of Sheriff.
There are reasons why other countries have moved on to a better system of determining whether a prosecution is tenable. Another backwards aspect of the USA legal system, for me.
William is going to have his work cut out.
At a world cup match! FFS! William was cheering for the Welsh, and England will have this sheep botherer foisted upon us.
The question is why they take the Russian side, and seek to pressure Ukraine.
- Natural gas
- Vodka
- Caviare
She will then sue someone to cover up the fuck up - probably the Ukrainian Government.
ETA also it is rugby so who cares?
https://twitter.com/paulmainwood/status/1493913253046632448?s=21
Unless Nippy is jumping the gun again…..
If you selling out other people, then who cares what it costs *them*?
Bit like Rotherham - it's not like anyone the prosecutors, police or social workers cared about was involved.
Just that it will be hard for Labour to do because it will be directly harming its own supporters (by and large).
Given where we are, a substantial reduction in students going to University will mean some significant redundancies in the University sector.
Including the 5 days self isolation for positive cases which apparently never was a regulation in the first place, just guidance, but no one knew because "no one asked" - lol
Maybe we should get rid of the NI Executive and have ministers agree decisions by sending letters to each other - seems to lead to better outcomes such as this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feeds/60392598
Storm Eunice, scheduled to hit Friday, does not actually exist yet, it is due to form later this afternoon.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1480249429525516290
Who steals the goose from off the common.
But leave the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
Doing my family history I'm somewhat puzzled as to the origins of my mothers maiden name, a very unusual one. Appears to originate in the East Midlands.
There is a Stately Home of that name in Leicestershire, and there was once a village of the same name nearby. However, it appears that the village was demolished in the 18th C to enlarge the gardens of the Hall.
We could save cash by having Liz Truss as Speaker of both
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-price-index-for-december-2021#:~:text=UK house prices increased by,from 10.7% in November 2021.
Covid may have lead to people more greatly prioritising their homes financially. But we should have been trying to stop this inflation. At some point a leader is going to have to spell out that we cannot fix our economic problems in the UK unless we sort out housing.
I'm sure that you know more about this subject than me, so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e4.htm?s_cid=mm7107e4_w
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/omicron-wave-was-brutal-on-kids-hospitalization-rates-4x-higher-than-deltas/
There is no sign that Washington or London are interested in pressuring the Ukrainians into making concessions.
I'm sure it pales in comparison to the number the Welsh, Scots, Irish, and French have all won.
A 25 yr mortgage now costs the same as about one did back in Jan 1977 (Much higher real terms capital, way lower interest rates, & inflation stripped out).
Chart adjusted for inflation, interest rate + 1.5%.
https://rpubs.com/Pulpstar/boe
I'll do one adjusted for wages, and another for nominal values at some point.
The introduction of mortgage age max going to 75, various "springboard" products and the frankly ludicrous max wage multiple of edit - almost 7 (7 times higher, 5 times lower) 7 times joint income being offered https://www.onlinemortgageadvisor.co.uk/mortgage-affordability/mortgages-at-7-times-income/ means the show will continue for a while yet.
Sadly, I don't see how this stops, maybe we should have let COVID run riot among the over 70s and removed their stranglehold over UK life.
Anyway, we are all aware that you would much prefer President Boris.
Babcock boss warns Rosyth yard could move to England if Scots vote Yes…
https://twitter.com/davieclegg/status/1493855651856064514
Still, If you're happy ... we are certainly all happy.
Just imagine the President's speech every Christmas Day delivered by Brian Blessed.
But I prefer elected rulers, take back control from our unelected rulers.
This is crazy. A direct transfer of wealth from from young workers without asset-rich parents, to the the asset rich older generation - and their offspring. Our economic system is morally bankrupt.
Come on labour. Scrape the barnacles off the boat and consolidate the workers vote. Go into the next election offering a massive income tax cut, paid for by a proper property tax.
And everyone knows the last decades of decent music were the 65-85. It really has been all downhill since then.
Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2846173
Though really you don't need a source, it's just common sense. If people can't afford the space, or ever afford to get out of the rental trap, they can't afford kids.
I'm a collectivist/democrat (choose your label) by instinct, and prefer the idea of society as a whole choosing a direction and all of us more or less enthusiastically pursuing it. In crisis situations it's essential to have a clear decision that applies to everyone - the (possibly apocryphal?) stories of anarchist units in the Spanish Civil War having a debate and a vote before each battle to decide whether to take part (so nobody else in the line knew whether to rely on them) illustrate the point.
But there are countless examples of bad decisions taken centrally which could have been mitigated or avoided by local decision-making, and clearly people feel more engaged with that than in instructions coming down from On High. I used to be more centralist than I am now. Provisionally I now prefer the Swiss approach - lots of referenda at each appropriate level (town/canton/national), so the people as a whole make the decisions rather than little randomly-chosen groups, but it's not limited to casting a vote for a party every 5 years.
A bad President can be removed (see: Trump) much easier than a bad Monarch can be.
The mortgage interest cost is very low,
repairs are - well plenty of landlords don't seem too bothered about those..
The profit/admin is generally huge.
US and UK could be remaining silent whilst the Germans and French do the pressing for them? Washington and London sold out the Czechs in 1945, London had already done that to the Czechs in 1938! But no. As Ben Wallace suggested “whiff of Munich” it must be France and Germany he was referring to, not his own policy. So Think I agree with you.
But What’s the possibility Germany, France, US, UK and Ukraine all decide to implement the pleblicite and border changes? Zero possibility? Is it appeasement. Surrendering to aggression? Or more complicated than that in bigger security picture?
Does that explain why London and Washington remain silent on this?
It was only days ago that a confirmation for a further order of a batch of frigates from the BAE Glasgow yard was made.
Is this a regulatory requirement of risks to be published, perhaps?
Bad monarchs rarely matter given we have constitutional monarchs not an absolute monarch anyway. In any case an Act of Parliament can replace one monarch by the next in the line of succession as at the Abdication.
A bad President however like the US President has far more impact on most peoples' lives.
The 90s had incredible music, if you can't appreciate it then that's on you, though I'm very happy to listen to 70s and 80s as well. As someone who grew up in the 90s it's not surprising that I rate it!
I believe that the fundamentals of the UK, both in terms of the creativity and resourcefulness of our people and physical and geographical factors give us every chance of thriving in the 21st century. We need a decent, un-fussy, competent Government that tries to get out of peoples' way rather than get in peoples' faces.
I'm a bit of a sucker for the 90's myself mind. Pop culture-wise it was a bit of a sweet spot. Appreciate the 80's too - only bits of the 70's and 60's.
Note that the Ukrainian comments on this are specific to who they think is doing this.
Just asking.
I can't imagine the mess of derivatives that would come into being with that kind of mortgage asset.
A settlement with only Ukraine giving ground isn't a settlement at all.
🌳Amongst 2019 Con voters:
Sunak +41% (-10)
Truss +28% (-4)
Johnson +3% (+6)
UK Govt. +1% (=)
Starmer -39% (-1)
2,226 UK adults, 11-13 Feb
(Changes from 14-16 Jan)
📈Starmer's highest ever Best PM score
🌳Johnson 31% (+3)
🌹Starmer 39% (+3)
◻️ Don't know 30% (-5)
2,226 UK adults, 11-13 Feb
(Changes from 14-16 Jan) https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1493936921604771842/photo/1
Various derivatives are sold with all mortgages anyway. The point about this mortgage would be it would be suitable for general renters - takes the Landlord middle man out the picture.
Creating more problems is never the right answer. We can learn this the quick way or the hard way.
We all know about Legal and General. Also Lloyds (50k homes), and ..er.. John Lewis.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/19/lloyds-plans-big-move-into-uk-rental-market-with-50000-homes
The blatant thing is that such will only be interested in the top of the market in all likelihood.
L&G rents are significantly higher than normal market rents, and they aim for the top 25% or so afaics.