Sky reporting Chelsea fans continued chanting Abramovich name at the match last night
Astonishing deaf ears
Some are still out to lynch Bryant too. Fortunately they don't know where to find the Rhonnda.
Did Chris Bryant know where to find the Rhondda before he became the MP?
Private school in Cheltenham, Oxbridge, Oxford University Conservative Association .... I dislike people being parachuted into constituencies with which they have little or zero connection.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
We are planning to buy a flat to house a refugee family (most likely not Syrian or Afghan rather than Ukrainian under the auspices of the existing community sponsorship scheme).
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
We are planning to buy a flat to house a refugee family (most likely not Syrian or Afghan rather than Ukrainian under the auspices of the existing community sponsorship scheme).
Well done and hopefully the sponsorship scheme will be a great success
I salute the good intentions - but if @OnlyLivingBoy is buying a flat in London for the purpose of housing refugees they will be competing with first time buyers and driving up house prices, and rents as well because it reduces supply.
One of the issues with bringing refugees in to the UK is that it has its own housing crisis due to lack of supply and high prices. There are large parts of Europe which has a surplus of high quality housing which is far more suitable for refugees. For instance, there are large complexes of 1980's public housing in Scandinavian countries that have been mothballed due to depopulation. Syrian refugees have been successfully housed in Icelandic fishing villages and have successfully found work there.
Indeed, there are no easy choices in any of this.
I would suggest Birmingham for your project. Multicultural. Relatively low house prices. Easy to get to from London. Strong economy and lots of jobs. Purpose built, low maintainece, flats can be bought for the purpose you envisage for £100-200k. Just watch out for the leasehold situation.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Has the west ceded it's influence in the rest of the world? I wondered this when Trump was talking about pulling out of European and particularly German bases because they were expensive and the Europeans ungrateful. I just wondered how an American president could be so stupid to surrender such strategic influence.
The West's power has always been in the strength of its relationships, with their societies acting as a model for prosperity. Now what are we an example of? Quick dodgy money and hypocrisy? 'We' should be out there, building the world. If we don't, we leave it others. China is ensuring all roads lead to Beijing and the countries they pass through will increasingly look to authoritarian state Capitalism as the model for Government.
I'm on a theme now, but the West needs renewal. We need to get out of this mindset that we are rich and powerful, we have always been rich and powerful, and we always will be rich and powerful. It needs to be demonstrated, again, that the rule of law, equity, justice and democracy lead to self confident, rich and happy societies. The development of Russia shows that this is not self evident. It seems that the West thought, following the fall of the Soviet Union, having tried it their way, would fall by default into a pluralistic liberal society. How could they not? What was the alternative at the end of history? Well, we know now.
Certain sections of society bitch and moan about foreign aid, the expense of engaging with the world, the BBC, that too many foreigners come here looking for a better life. All these things are our strengths in the world, and if used properly, can influence the world towards one more of our liking.
Telling one section of our society to shut up about their concerns (however misguided you feel they may be) so that we can demonstrate how wonderful our way of doing things is to others, is a funny way to go about it.
Well, were I seeking office, I might spend more time in persuasion on that point. But those points can be addressed by building for today and for tomorrow. By strengthening our state institutions, providing housing and services fit for purpose, a lot of resource issues around immigration can be dealt with. This can grow the economy by creating happy, healthy and prosperous people who spend money, start businesses and innovate in new existing sectors. By being open to others coming, either permanently or to study, those that come temporarily will forge ties of friendship and when they go back they will contribute to the prosperity of their own country, binding us closer. The problem of immigration is not the immigrants, imo, but the paltry state of services and housing and the lack of opportunity within our own society.
The BBC is a global brand, incredibly well trusted. If we give it more, it can do more. Sure, I might not like Dancing with the Stars, I might not have children and don't watch Peppa Pig but the BBC puts out some cracking documentaries. When something happens in the world, I can choose a broad range of opinion to learn about it, but for facts - especially contentious ones in a developing situation, for me it hasn't happened unless the BBC have it.
It's not about telling a section of society to shut up. People can bitch and moan, and no one will ever persuade everyone to their way of looking at things (pluralism provides self correction and should be fostered), but I believe we are stronger, more influential and prosperous if we are open, tolerant and fair. I believe that we need to build this world, first because it is not self evident that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the best systems of Governance, and secondly if these values are not promoted then others might promote authoritarianism and the arbitrary use of state violence and military power at home and abroad. And we will not be immune to such thinking in such a world.
At the root of it all, I suppose, my view is that an awesome marriage of capitalism and strong state institutions that work for people have created the richest and most prosperous societies yet known. My feeling, and it is mostly a feeling, is that we have tilted slightly to a view where people work for the benefit of Capitalism. That the making of money is the goal of capitalism makes it an engine of the economy but that shouldn't mean that wealth is the end goal of society. Money is a tool, with which society can improve itself, only if it is organised to do so. Capitalism instead needs to be made to work for people. If the proceeds of capital are made to work for society, I think an open, tolerant society can be built. It can exported and promote itself. We can make the End of History, but we have to make it, it won't just happen.
So how much extra do you personally give to the BBC ?
Is this todays meme?
We should do more for refugees. - How many have you taken in? We should improve the BBC - How much extra have you paid? We should improve the NHS - Did you bother to train as a doctor?
When someone says we should 'give' more to the BBC I'm curious as to where they think this extra money is coming from.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
There are stacks of people ready to do exactly that - including many Ukrainians already in the UK trying to get their sisters / nieces here to safety.
There is this myth - no, lets call it what it is, a lie - propagated by the Tories to placate the "no forrin invaders we're British" wing of their supporters that there is nowhere to house refugees.
Having seen the work done by organisations like Tees Valley of Sanctuary there is *plenty* we can and already do offer to refugees.
We only need to find the shared humanity that every other country in Europe offered weeks ago.
Are you willing to take in a Ukrainian refugee family
Why? That's not how the system works. There are *Ukrainians* trying to take in their own family members. And other people's family members. And refugee groups like the one I mentioned up and down the country working with local authorities and housing trusts who have properties they get housed in.
They aren't nice houses in nice areas. They are the houses that nobody wants. But they are safer than back home.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Has the west ceded it's influence in the rest of the world? I wondered this when Trump was talking about pulling out of European and particularly German bases because they were expensive and the Europeans ungrateful. I just wondered how an American president could be so stupid to surrender such strategic influence.
The West's power has always been in the strength of its relationships, with their societies acting as a model for prosperity. Now what are we an example of? Quick dodgy money and hypocrisy? 'We' should be out there, building the world. If we don't, we leave it others. China is ensuring all roads lead to Beijing and the countries they pass through will increasingly look to authoritarian state Capitalism as the model for Government.
I'm on a theme now, but the West needs renewal. We need to get out of this mindset that we are rich and powerful, we have always been rich and powerful, and we always will be rich and powerful. It needs to be demonstrated, again, that the rule of law, equity, justice and democracy lead to self confident, rich and happy societies. The development of Russia shows that this is not self evident. It seems that the West thought, following the fall of the Soviet Union, having tried it their way, would fall by default into a pluralistic liberal society. How could they not? What was the alternative at the end of history? Well, we know now.
Certain sections of society bitch and moan about foreign aid, the expense of engaging with the world, the BBC, that too many foreigners come here looking for a better life. All these things are our strengths in the world, and if used properly, can influence the world towards one more of our liking.
Telling one section of our society to shut up about their concerns (however misguided you feel they may be) so that we can demonstrate how wonderful our way of doing things is to others, is a funny way to go about it.
Well, were I seeking office, I might spend more time in persuasion on that point. But those points can be addressed by building for today and for tomorrow. By strengthening our state institutions, providing housing and services fit for purpose, a lot of resource issues around immigration can be dealt with. This can grow the economy by creating happy, healthy and prosperous people who spend money, start businesses and innovate in new existing sectors. By being open to others coming, either permanently or to study, those that come temporarily will forge ties of friendship and when they go back they will contribute to the prosperity of their own country, binding us closer. The problem of immigration is not the immigrants, imo, but the paltry state of services and housing and the lack of opportunity within our own society.
The BBC is a global brand, incredibly well trusted. If we give it more, it can do more. Sure, I might not like Dancing with the Stars, I might not have children and don't watch Peppa Pig but the BBC puts out some cracking documentaries. When something happens in the world, I can choose a broad range of opinion to learn about it, but for facts - especially contentious ones in a developing situation, for me it hasn't happened unless the BBC have it.
It's not about telling a section of society to shut up. People can bitch and moan, and no one will ever persuade everyone to their way of looking at things (pluralism provides self correction and should be fostered), but I believe we are stronger, more influential and prosperous if we are open, tolerant and fair. I believe that we need to build this world, first because it is not self evident that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the best systems of Governance, and secondly if these values are not promoted then others might promote authoritarianism and the arbitrary use of state violence and military power at home and abroad. And we will not be immune to such thinking in such a world.
At the root of it all, I suppose, my view is that an awesome marriage of capitalism and strong state institutions that work for people have created the richest and most prosperous societies yet known. My feeling, and it is mostly a feeling, is that we have tilted slightly to a view where people work for the benefit of Capitalism. That the making of money is the goal of capitalism makes it an engine of the economy but that shouldn't mean that wealth is the end goal of society. Money is a tool, with which society can improve itself, only if it is organised to do so. Capitalism instead needs to be made to work for people. If the proceeds of capital are made to work for society, I think an open, tolerant society can be built. It can exported and promote itself. We can make the End of History, but we have to make it, it won't just happen.
So how much extra do you personally give to the BBC ?
Is this todays meme?
We should do more for refugees. - How many have you taken in? We should improve the BBC - How much extra have you paid? We should improve the NHS - Did you bother to train as a doctor?
When someone says we should 'give' more to the BBC I'm curious as to where they think this extra money is coming from.
Personally I would be happy if the funding was kept the same but the government gave it more respect and independence.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Has the west ceded it's influence in the rest of the world? I wondered this when Trump was talking about pulling out of European and particularly German bases because they were expensive and the Europeans ungrateful. I just wondered how an American president could be so stupid to surrender such strategic influence.
The West's power has always been in the strength of its relationships, with their societies acting as a model for prosperity. Now what are we an example of? Quick dodgy money and hypocrisy? 'We' should be out there, building the world. If we don't, we leave it others. China is ensuring all roads lead to Beijing and the countries they pass through will increasingly look to authoritarian state Capitalism as the model for Government.
I'm on a theme now, but the West needs renewal. We need to get out of this mindset that we are rich and powerful, we have always been rich and powerful, and we always will be rich and powerful. It needs to be demonstrated, again, that the rule of law, equity, justice and democracy lead to self confident, rich and happy societies. The development of Russia shows that this is not self evident. It seems that the West thought, following the fall of the Soviet Union, having tried it their way, would fall by default into a pluralistic liberal society. How could they not? What was the alternative at the end of history? Well, we know now.
Certain sections of society bitch and moan about foreign aid, the expense of engaging with the world, the BBC, that too many foreigners come here looking for a better life. All these things are our strengths in the world, and if used properly, can influence the world towards one more of our liking.
Telling one section of our society to shut up about their concerns (however misguided you feel they may be) so that we can demonstrate how wonderful our way of doing things is to others, is a funny way to go about it.
Well, were I seeking office, I might spend more time in persuasion on that point. But those points can be addressed by building for today and for tomorrow. By strengthening our state institutions, providing housing and services fit for purpose, a lot of resource issues around immigration can be dealt with. This can grow the economy by creating happy, healthy and prosperous people who spend money, start businesses and innovate in new existing sectors. By being open to others coming, either permanently or to study, those that come temporarily will forge ties of friendship and when they go back they will contribute to the prosperity of their own country, binding us closer. The problem of immigration is not the immigrants, imo, but the paltry state of services and housing and the lack of opportunity within our own society.
The BBC is a global brand, incredibly well trusted. If we give it more, it can do more. Sure, I might not like Dancing with the Stars, I might not have children and don't watch Peppa Pig but the BBC puts out some cracking documentaries. When something happens in the world, I can choose a broad range of opinion to learn about it, but for facts - especially contentious ones in a developing situation, for me it hasn't happened unless the BBC have it.
It's not about telling a section of society to shut up. People can bitch and moan, and no one will ever persuade everyone to their way of looking at things (pluralism provides self correction and should be fostered), but I believe we are stronger, more influential and prosperous if we are open, tolerant and fair. I believe that we need to build this world, first because it is not self evident that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the best systems of Governance, and secondly if these values are not promoted then others might promote authoritarianism and the arbitrary use of state violence and military power at home and abroad. And we will not be immune to such thinking in such a world.
At the root of it all, I suppose, my view is that an awesome marriage of capitalism and strong state institutions that work for people have created the richest and most prosperous societies yet known. My feeling, and it is mostly a feeling, is that we have tilted slightly to a view where people work for the benefit of Capitalism. That the making of money is the goal of capitalism makes it an engine of the economy but that shouldn't mean that wealth is the end goal of society. Money is a tool, with which society can improve itself, only if it is organised to do so. Capitalism instead needs to be made to work for people. If the proceeds of capital are made to work for society, I think an open, tolerant society can be built. It can exported and promote itself. We can make the End of History, but we have to make it, it won't just happen.
So how much extra do you personally give to the BBC ?
Is this todays meme?
We should do more for refugees. - How many have you taken in? We should improve the BBC - How much extra have you paid? We should improve the NHS - Did you bother to train as a doctor?
When someone says we should 'give' more to the BBC I'm curious as to where they think this extra money is coming from.
I've just realised the Commonwealth Games are being held in Birmingham this summer.
That had totally passed me by.
Even though I often mentioned it in my list of feel good factors that might save Boris in the second half of the year? Emma at Wimbledon; Commonwealth Games in Birmingham; Rugby League World Cup up north; England wins the World Cup in November/December.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
All in the name of "rubbing the right's nose in diversity".
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
There are stacks of people ready to do exactly that - including many Ukrainians already in the UK trying to get their sisters / nieces here to safety.
There is this myth - no, lets call it what it is, a lie - propagated by the Tories to placate the "no forrin invaders we're British" wing of their supporters that there is nowhere to house refugees.
Having seen the work done by organisations like Tees Valley of Sanctuary there is *plenty* we can and already do offer to refugees.
We only need to find the shared humanity that every other country in Europe offered weeks ago.
Are you willing to take in a Ukrainian refugee family
Yes.
Mrs DA says we are going to. It's particularly difficult for ones with poor or no English so as a Russian speaking household we can do something. I've told her no Man Utd fans. That's my red line.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Not that surprising, most of Africa was neutral in the Cold War apart from South Africa but the National Party have been replaced by the ANC who are hardly going to follow exactly the same pro US policy as their pro apartheid previous opponents. India was neutral in the Cold War too and China was Communist in the Cold War and still is and closer to Russia than the West today.
At least most African nations on that poll oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine even if they still want to so business with Russia
It is Francophone Africa that is more Pro-Russian. I suspect mostly a historical legacy of Soviet support for liberation movements than a sophisticated understanding of current Russia.
Just worth noting that support for Ukraine is not a slam-dunk across the world. Much is neutral or even leaning to Putin, or perhaps more accurately against Western expansionism. A legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism in the post independence era.
In case of any doubt, I do not regard NATO or the EU as expansionist. Membership is voluntary, and reversible, and not aggressive.
Africa neutral in the Cold War? Hmmm.
Quite a lot of it wasn't.
Angola, Mozambique, Libya, Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, and others.
Though of course it's more complex than 'aligned or neutral', as there was a lot of buying favours and sponsoring 'movements'.
Africa is pretty much bought and paid for by China. I met a couple of Cape Verdeans last month who complained bitterly, unprompted, about the wall of Chinese money engulfing them. Same nearly every country I passed through when Cape to Cairo ing 15 years ago.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
There are stacks of people ready to do exactly that - including many Ukrainians already in the UK trying to get their sisters / nieces here to safety.
There is this myth - no, lets call it what it is, a lie - propagated by the Tories to placate the "no forrin invaders we're British" wing of their supporters that there is nowhere to house refugees.
Having seen the work done by organisations like Tees Valley of Sanctuary there is *plenty* we can and already do offer to refugees.
We only need to find the shared humanity that every other country in Europe offered weeks ago.
Are you willing to take in a Ukrainian refugee family
Why? That's not how the system works. There are *Ukrainians* trying to take in their own family members. And other people's family members. And refugee groups like the one I mentioned up and down the country working with local authorities and housing trusts who have properties they get housed in.
They aren't nice houses in nice areas. They are the houses that nobody wants. But they are safer than back home.
Only people who have a very low opinion of the British would believe that, unlike people living in other European countries, we would be unwilling to provide the accommodation needed to house desperate Ukrainian refugees. Don't judge those who live here by the standards of the government.
I see that Nicola Sturgeon has called for the possibility of a No Fly Zone. It's personally encouraging to see that those on the Left like me are still prepared to be courageous on behalf of Ukrainians, even if it means the ultimate sacrifice.
I've been gobsmacked by the lack of courage of those on the right, especially those who are anti-state. But perhaps I shouldn't be. Not helping Ukraine militarily is the ultimate example of selfishness and self-centredness.
Sturgeon calling for a No fly zone whilst also wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons is evidence that the SNP will just jump opportunistically on to any popular policy, without being accountable in any way for the consequences. It gives me a lot of doubts about Scottish Independence, no doubt there will be people in Scotland having the same thoughts.
I think views on that are so entrenched very little affects it.
Tend to agree. Scotland appears to be in a permanent holding pattern. However, I think these kind of comments, following on from pensions, oil and gas, etc., will make it more difficult for Yes to break out of 45-50% range anytime soon. Almost seem designed to put off waverers.
It's worth noting how Sturgeon has diverged from her predecessor's approach to building a Yes-supporting voter coalition. Salmond was much keener on courting business, and it is inconceivable that he would have been so hardline on gender. Nicola, on the other hand, has brought the radical Greens into government. Maybe it's to do with the areas they represent. Nicola is Glasgow. Eck represented the Tory-facing NE.
Sorry to drag you away from the endlessly fascinating subject (to you) of what's going on with the EssEnnPee, but any view on the leader of your own party, or sub branch, and his about turn on BJ? Can't remember if you were one of them but a few fiolk seemed to think DRoss finding a moral compass over partygate would go down well with voters at the Scottish locals, does the reverse apply?
In which case Ed Davey is stupid but it's actually very simple
Labour / Lib Dem / Greens are 55-60% of the vote Tories / Right wing protest party are 40-45% of the vote.
Sort out a form of PR and it's very difficult for a Tory party with a right wing agenda to take power...
It is also difficult for a Labour party with a left wing agenda to get as close to power as Corbyn did in 2017 under FPTP or to ever win a majority again as they did in 1945 for instance.
The LDs were also of course in government with the Tories from 2010 to 2015
Can anyone identify. post Brexit apart, any deep and long term differences, with figures (like how much benefit levels should be, how much more should the NHS spend) between the centre left (SKS's Labour + LDs) and the policies of the present government?
Lots of bits and pieces, and lots and lots of competence issues (where do you start?) but what about real long term money spending policy?
Davey's LDs and Starmer Labour would likely push for a wealth tax, spending wise Labour would probably spend even more than Sunak. Labour would return the top income tax rate to 50% too. The LDs would want closer alignment to the SM and CU as probably would Starmer even if Labour MPs from Leave seats opposed.
Labour would also build more homes in the Home Counties greenbelt than the Tories and the LDs (many LD councillors are Nimby in the South)
I think that uncosted list of possibles makes the point.
BTW 'closer alignment' needs spelling out. And any idea of 50% IT needs to compare with centre right plans to balance the books.
Suspect it would be much better known if the stones were re-erected.
I mentioned the nearby Nine Ladies earlier, which I have visited many times - and slept at.
However - and this seems slightly crazy to me - I've driven near to Arbor Low hundreds of times, and walked near to it on a fair few. But I've never been to see it. And I like henges. I'm always doing other things when I'm near it.
Arbor Low is in private ownership of a farmer, and operates on an honesty box system.
I'd say combine it with a second nearby visit. It is great, but won't keep you occupied for half a day unlike say Avebury. There's also a Burial Barrow nearby.
You could combine with a walk down Lathkill Dale, or walk or cycle around Carsington Water or Ladybower Res, or if you want another local ancient/modern tradition look up the Well Dressing calendar (https://www.visitpeakdistrict.com/whats-on/well-dressings) , or crawl a couple of local ancient churches.
"This is not the time for people to be going there, and the Ukrainians have made clear, once you cross the border with the expectation to fight, you're in it for good," he told Sky News.
"So people who think they can go there, do a couple of weeks, take some selfies, get some Instagram shots and come home, that is not the way the Ukrainians are viewing the people that go and fight for them. British people should not be doing it."
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Has the west ceded it's influence in the rest of the world? I wondered this when Trump was talking about pulling out of European and particularly German bases because they were expensive and the Europeans ungrateful. I just wondered how an American president could be so stupid to surrender such strategic influence.
The West's power has always been in the strength of its relationships, with their societies acting as a model for prosperity. Now what are we an example of? Quick dodgy money and hypocrisy? 'We' should be out there, building the world. If we don't, we leave it others. China is ensuring all roads lead to Beijing and the countries they pass through will increasingly look to authoritarian state Capitalism as the model for Government.
I'm on a theme now, but the West needs renewal. We need to get out of this mindset that we are rich and powerful, we have always been rich and powerful, and we always will be rich and powerful. It needs to be demonstrated, again, that the rule of law, equity, justice and democracy lead to self confident, rich and happy societies. The development of Russia shows that this is not self evident. It seems that the West thought, following the fall of the Soviet Union, having tried it their way, would fall by default into a pluralistic liberal society. How could they not? What was the alternative at the end of history? Well, we know now.
Certain sections of society bitch and moan about foreign aid, the expense of engaging with the world, the BBC, that too many foreigners come here looking for a better life. All these things are our strengths in the world, and if used properly, can influence the world towards one more of our liking.
Telling one section of our society to shut up about their concerns (however misguided you feel they may be) so that we can demonstrate how wonderful our way of doing things is to others, is a funny way to go about it.
Well, were I seeking office, I might spend more time in persuasion on that point. But those points can be addressed by building for today and for tomorrow. By strengthening our state institutions, providing housing and services fit for purpose, a lot of resource issues around immigration can be dealt with. This can grow the economy by creating happy, healthy and prosperous people who spend money, start businesses and innovate in new existing sectors. By being open to others coming, either permanently or to study, those that come temporarily will forge ties of friendship and when they go back they will contribute to the prosperity of their own country, binding us closer. The problem of immigration is not the immigrants, imo, but the paltry state of services and housing and the lack of opportunity within our own society.
The BBC is a global brand, incredibly well trusted. If we give it more, it can do more. Sure, I might not like Dancing with the Stars, I might not have children and don't watch Peppa Pig but the BBC puts out some cracking documentaries. When something happens in the world, I can choose a broad range of opinion to learn about it, but for facts - especially contentious ones in a developing situation, for me it hasn't happened unless the BBC have it.
It's not about telling a section of society to shut up. People can bitch and moan, and no one will ever persuade everyone to their way of looking at things (pluralism provides self correction and should be fostered), but I believe we are stronger, more influential and prosperous if we are open, tolerant and fair. I believe that we need to build this world, first because it is not self evident that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the best systems of Governance, and secondly if these values are not promoted then others might promote authoritarianism and the arbitrary use of state violence and military power at home and abroad. And we will not be immune to such thinking in such a world.
At the root of it all, I suppose, my view is that an awesome marriage of capitalism and strong state institutions that work for people have created the richest and most prosperous societies yet known. My feeling, and it is mostly a feeling, is that we have tilted slightly to a view where people work for the benefit of Capitalism. That the making of money is the goal of capitalism makes it an engine of the economy but that shouldn't mean that wealth is the end goal of society. Money is a tool, with which society can improve itself, only if it is organised to do so. Capitalism instead needs to be made to work for people. If the proceeds of capital are made to work for society, I think an open, tolerant society can be built. It can exported and promote itself. We can make the End of History, but we have to make it, it won't just happen.
So how much extra do you personally give to the BBC ?
Is this todays meme?
We should do more for refugees. - How many have you taken in? We should improve the BBC - How much extra have you paid? We should improve the NHS - Did you bother to train as a doctor?
When someone says we should 'give' more to the BBC I'm curious as to where they think this extra money is coming from.
The "we" gives it away.
Does it ?
Then why doesn't he say "I think we should pay more tax to fund the BBC" ?
Then perhaps we could discuss why the number of politicians advocating such a policy appears to be minimal.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Has the west ceded it's influence in the rest of the world? I wondered this when Trump was talking about pulling out of European and particularly German bases because they were expensive and the Europeans ungrateful. I just wondered how an American president could be so stupid to surrender such strategic influence.
The West's power has always been in the strength of its relationships, with their societies acting as a model for prosperity. Now what are we an example of? Quick dodgy money and hypocrisy? 'We' should be out there, building the world. If we don't, we leave it others. China is ensuring all roads lead to Beijing and the countries they pass through will increasingly look to authoritarian state Capitalism as the model for Government.
I'm on a theme now, but the West needs renewal. We need to get out of this mindset that we are rich and powerful, we have always been rich and powerful, and we always will be rich and powerful. It needs to be demonstrated, again, that the rule of law, equity, justice and democracy lead to self confident, rich and happy societies. The development of Russia shows that this is not self evident. It seems that the West thought, following the fall of the Soviet Union, having tried it their way, would fall by default into a pluralistic liberal society. How could they not? What was the alternative at the end of history? Well, we know now.
Certain sections of society bitch and moan about foreign aid, the expense of engaging with the world, the BBC, that too many foreigners come here looking for a better life. All these things are our strengths in the world, and if used properly, can influence the world towards one more of our liking.
Telling one section of our society to shut up about their concerns (however misguided you feel they may be) so that we can demonstrate how wonderful our way of doing things is to others, is a funny way to go about it.
Well, were I seeking office, I might spend more time in persuasion on that point. But those points can be addressed by building for today and for tomorrow. By strengthening our state institutions, providing housing and services fit for purpose, a lot of resource issues around immigration can be dealt with. This can grow the economy by creating happy, healthy and prosperous people who spend money, start businesses and innovate in new existing sectors. By being open to others coming, either permanently or to study, those that come temporarily will forge ties of friendship and when they go back they will contribute to the prosperity of their own country, binding us closer. The problem of immigration is not the immigrants, imo, but the paltry state of services and housing and the lack of opportunity within our own society.
The BBC is a global brand, incredibly well trusted. If we give it more, it can do more. Sure, I might not like Dancing with the Stars, I might not have children and don't watch Peppa Pig but the BBC puts out some cracking documentaries. When something happens in the world, I can choose a broad range of opinion to learn about it, but for facts - especially contentious ones in a developing situation, for me it hasn't happened unless the BBC have it.
It's not about telling a section of society to shut up. People can bitch and moan, and no one will ever persuade everyone to their way of looking at things (pluralism provides self correction and should be fostered), but I believe we are stronger, more influential and prosperous if we are open, tolerant and fair. I believe that we need to build this world, first because it is not self evident that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the best systems of Governance, and secondly if these values are not promoted then others might promote authoritarianism and the arbitrary use of state violence and military power at home and abroad. And we will not be immune to such thinking in such a world.
At the root of it all, I suppose, my view is that an awesome marriage of capitalism and strong state institutions that work for people have created the richest and most prosperous societies yet known. My feeling, and it is mostly a feeling, is that we have tilted slightly to a view where people work for the benefit of Capitalism. That the making of money is the goal of capitalism makes it an engine of the economy but that shouldn't mean that wealth is the end goal of society. Money is a tool, with which society can improve itself, only if it is organised to do so. Capitalism instead needs to be made to work for people. If the proceeds of capital are made to work for society, I think an open, tolerant society can be built. It can exported and promote itself. We can make the End of History, but we have to make it, it won't just happen.
So how much extra do you personally give to the BBC ?
Is this todays meme?
We should do more for refugees. - How many have you taken in? We should improve the BBC - How much extra have you paid? We should improve the NHS - Did you bother to train as a doctor?
When someone says we should 'give' more to the BBC I'm curious as to where they think this extra money is coming from.
Surely just another (relatively minor) line item for the ‘wealth tax’ shopping list.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
We are planning to buy a flat to house a refugee family (most likely not Syrian or Afghan rather than Ukrainian under the auspices of the existing community sponsorship scheme).
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
We are planning to buy a flat to house a refugee family (most likely not Syrian or Afghan rather than Ukrainian under the auspices of the existing community sponsorship scheme).
Well done and hopefully the sponsorship scheme will be a great success
I salute the good intentions - but if @OnlyLivingBoy is buying a flat in London for the purpose of housing refugees they will be competing with first time buyers and driving up house prices, and rents as well because it reduces supply.
One of the issues with bringing refugees in to the UK is that it has its own housing crisis due to lack of supply and high prices. There are large parts of Europe which has a surplus of high quality housing which is far more suitable for refugees. For instance, there are large complexes of 1980's public housing in Scandinavian countries that have been mothballed due to depopulation. Syrian refugees have been successfully housed in Icelandic fishing villages and have successfully found work there.
Indeed, there are no easy choices in any of this.
I would suggest Birmingham for your project. Multicultural. Relatively low house prices. Easy to get to from London. Strong economy and lots of jobs. Purpose built, low maintainece, flats can be bought for the purpose you envisage for £100-200k. Just watch out for the leasehold situation.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
Fair enough. Difficult one. Good luck. I would be worried about complying with the increasing amount of rules about letting out properties and the liability of being a landlord. Particularly with an old property. Lots of overheads etc. Like many things in this country it feels like a case of human ingenuity and altruism being killed off by bureaucracy and regulation.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
‘Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship’
Golly, I hadn’t realised things had gone that badly for Gove. The Vinester is merciless.
Pathetic response
Lot of sanctimony on here the morn. Or rather even more sanctimony than usual.
Are you going to take in a Ukrainian refugee
Are you? Not sure if you’ve understood the meaning of sanctimony if you’re doing the ‘how dare you make a joke about a Tory, why aren’t you doing X’ thing. I bet you’d have been one of those types handing out white feathers 107 years ago.
I have already said at our age my wife and I could not, but then your nasty responses do not contribute and as you have not responded then it can be taken you are not going to volunteer
If you aren't going to take in a Ukranian refugee then best STFU about calling other people out about it.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
Here's a view of your number 9:
One of the first pictures I snapped after getting my microlight licence. Seeing the Wiltshire and Oxfordshire sites from low level whilst being still outside is one of the strengths of microlights.
I've just realised the Commonwealth Games are being held in Birmingham this summer.
That had totally passed me by.
Even though I often mentioned it in my list of feel good factors that might save Boris in the second half of the year? Emma at Wimbledon; Commonwealth Games in Birmingham; Rugby League World Cup up north; England wins the World Cup in November/December.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Not that surprising, most of Africa was neutral in the Cold War apart from South Africa but the National Party have been replaced by the ANC who are hardly going to follow exactly the same pro US policy as their pro apartheid previous opponents. India was neutral in the Cold War too and China was Communist in the Cold War and still is and closer to Russia than the West today.
At least most African nations on that poll oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine even if they still want to so business with Russia
It is Francophone Africa that is more Pro-Russian. I suspect mostly a historical legacy of Soviet support for liberation movements than a sophisticated understanding of current Russia.
Just worth noting that support for Ukraine is not a slam-dunk across the world. Much is neutral or even leaning to Putin, or perhaps more accurately against Western expansionism. A legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism in the post independence era.
In case of any doubt, I do not regard NATO or the EU as expansionist. Membership is voluntary, and reversible, and not aggressive.
Africa neutral in the Cold War? Hmmm.
Quite a lot of it wasn't.
Angola, Mozambique, Libya, Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, and others.
Though of course it's more complex than 'aligned or neutral', as there was a lot of buying favours and sponsoring 'movements'.
Africa is pretty much bought and paid for by China. I met a couple of Cape Verdeans last month who complained bitterly, unprompted, about the wall of Chinese money engulfing them. Same nearly every country I passed through when Cape to Cairo ing 15 years ago.
I'm not sure its China which will be doing future paying in some third world countries:
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
There are stacks of people ready to do exactly that - including many Ukrainians already in the UK trying to get their sisters / nieces here to safety.
There is this myth - no, lets call it what it is, a lie - propagated by the Tories to placate the "no forrin invaders we're British" wing of their supporters that there is nowhere to house refugees.
Having seen the work done by organisations like Tees Valley of Sanctuary there is *plenty* we can and already do offer to refugees.
We only need to find the shared humanity that every other country in Europe offered weeks ago.
Are you willing to take in a Ukrainian refugee family
Tens of thousands have done it in Poland, Germany and other countries. There's absolutely no reason to think the same would not happen in the UK.
Lets hope so but of course there are issues to take into consideration of which this one came up this morning
A widow on 5 live this morning made a good point that should she take in a refugee would her single rate for council tax be affected
Nice gain for the Greens in Occupied East Leicestershire:
Last night's by-election results: Herts CC, Hitchin S: LD hold N Herts, Hitchin Highbury: LD hold Herefs, Bromyard W: result awaited Rutland, Ryhall/Casterton: Grn gain from C
My in laws used to live in Ryhall.
Tories also held the Buckhurst Hill West Parish by election last night I helped in 53% to 47% for the Residents' candidate
Can that be used as a subsample? What were the main policy differences between Con and RP?
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
There are stacks of people ready to do exactly that - including many Ukrainians already in the UK trying to get their sisters / nieces here to safety.
There is this myth - no, lets call it what it is, a lie - propagated by the Tories to placate the "no forrin invaders we're British" wing of their supporters that there is nowhere to house refugees.
Having seen the work done by organisations like Tees Valley of Sanctuary there is *plenty* we can and already do offer to refugees.
We only need to find the shared humanity that every other country in Europe offered weeks ago.
Are you willing to take in a Ukrainian refugee family
Why? That's not how the system works. There are *Ukrainians* trying to take in their own family members. And other people's family members. And refugee groups like the one I mentioned up and down the country working with local authorities and housing trusts who have properties they get housed in.
They aren't nice houses in nice areas. They are the houses that nobody wants. But they are safer than back home.
I see that Nicola Sturgeon has called for the possibility of a No Fly Zone. It's personally encouraging to see that those on the Left like me are still prepared to be courageous on behalf of Ukrainians, even if it means the ultimate sacrifice.
I've been gobsmacked by the lack of courage of those on the right, especially those who are anti-state. But perhaps I shouldn't be. Not helping Ukraine militarily is the ultimate example of selfishness and self-centredness.
Sturgeon calling for a No fly zone whilst also wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons is evidence that the SNP will just jump opportunistically on to any popular policy, without being accountable in any way for the consequences. It gives me a lot of doubts about Scottish Independence, no doubt there will be people in Scotland having the same thoughts.
I think views on that are so entrenched very little affects it.
Tend to agree. Scotland appears to be in a permanent holding pattern. However, I think these kind of comments, following on from pensions, oil and gas, etc., will make it more difficult for Yes to break out of 45-50% range anytime soon. Almost seem designed to put off waverers.
It's worth noting how Sturgeon has diverged from her predecessor's approach to building a Yes-supporting voter coalition. Salmond was much keener on courting business, and it is inconceivable that he would have been so hardline on gender. Nicola, on the other hand, has brought the radical Greens into government. Maybe it's to do with the areas they represent. Nicola is Glasgow. Eck represented the Tory-facing NE.
The current incarnation of the SNP is just the left wing of the Labour Party with the exception of their views on Independence.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
‘Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship’
Golly, I hadn’t realised things had gone that badly for Gove. The Vinester is merciless.
Pathetic response
Lot of sanctimony on here the morn. Or rather even more sanctimony than usual.
Are you going to take in a Ukrainian refugee
Are you? Not sure if you’ve understood the meaning of sanctimony if you’re doing the ‘how dare you make a joke about a Tory, why aren’t you doing X’ thing. I bet you’d have been one of those types handing out white feathers 107 years ago.
I have already said at our age my wife and I could not, but then your nasty responses do not contribute and as you have not responded then it can be taken you are not going to volunteer
If you aren't going to take in a Ukranian refugee then best STFU about calling other people out about it.
Nah, even if he was taking in some refugees it would still be wrong to call other people out about it without knowing their circumstances.
I have already said at our age my wife and I could not, but then your nasty responses do not contribute and as you have not responded then it can be taken you are not going to volunteer
Get yourself a strapping muzhik. He can cut your lawn and brew samogon in your guest bathroom.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Not that surprising, most of Africa was neutral in the Cold War apart from South Africa but the National Party have been replaced by the ANC who are hardly going to follow exactly the same pro US policy as their pro apartheid previous opponents. India was neutral in the Cold War too and China was Communist in the Cold War and still is and closer to Russia than the West today.
At least most African nations on that poll oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine even if they still want to so business with Russia
It is Francophone Africa that is more Pro-Russian. I suspect mostly a historical legacy of Soviet support for liberation movements than a sophisticated understanding of current Russia.
Just worth noting that support for Ukraine is not a slam-dunk across the world. Much is neutral or even leaning to Putin, or perhaps more accurately against Western expansionism. A legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism in the post independence era.
In case of any doubt, I do not regard NATO or the EU as expansionist. Membership is voluntary, and reversible, and not aggressive.
Africa neutral in the Cold War? Hmmm.
Quite a lot of it wasn't.
Angola, Mozambique, Libya, Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, and others.
Though of course it's more complex than 'aligned or neutral', as there was a lot of buying favours and sponsoring 'movements'.
I don't think that I said Africa was neutral in the Cold War, but unquestionably national liberation movements were given ideological and financial support by Russia and China. There is folk memory of this which seems to have not noticed (like some Western Tankies) that Russia and China are no longer on the side of the workers, and indeed is a grasping kleptocratic neo-aristocracy.
Many of us in the Tory right also recognise realpolitik not foolish liberal enterprises to change the world leading to World War 3.
We defend NATO that is it
Yugoslavia say Hi.
Further your willingness to accept a Tsarist empire, as stated, is hardly in the best interests of NATO.
Alan Clark of course famously attacked Blair in one of his final speeches in the Commons in 1999 for attacking 'our fellow Christian Serbs' in Kosovo.
WW3 is not in the interests of NATO, it is a defensive not offensive alliance. Even Milosevic did not have nuclear weapons like Putin or a military the size of Russia's
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
I've just realised the Commonwealth Games are being held in Birmingham this summer.
That had totally passed me by.
Even though I often mentioned it in my list of feel good factors that might save Boris in the second half of the year? Emma at Wimbledon; Commonwealth Games in Birmingham; Rugby League World Cup up north; England wins the World Cup in November/December.
Platinum Jubilee is another one.
Hasn't the feelgood factor been disproved, or at least had heavy skepticism applied to it, on here a few times? Aside from a bunting covered Hermes returning victorious from the South Atlantic, are there many obvious cases of it having a political effect?
Nice gain for the Greens in Occupied East Leicestershire:
Last night's by-election results: Herts CC, Hitchin S: LD hold N Herts, Hitchin Highbury: LD hold Herefs, Bromyard W: result awaited Rutland, Ryhall/Casterton: Grn gain from C
My in laws used to live in Ryhall.
Tories also held the Buckhurst Hill West Parish by election last night I helped in 53% to 47% for the Residents' candidate
Can that be used as a subsample? What were the main policy differences between Con and RP?
Residents are posher that Conservatives and are more against new housing.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Has the west ceded it's influence in the rest of the world? I wondered this when Trump was talking about pulling out of European and particularly German bases because they were expensive and the Europeans ungrateful. I just wondered how an American president could be so stupid to surrender such strategic influence.
The West's power has always been in the strength of its relationships, with their societies acting as a model for prosperity. Now what are we an example of? Quick dodgy money and hypocrisy? 'We' should be out there, building the world. If we don't, we leave it others. China is ensuring all roads lead to Beijing and the countries they pass through will increasingly look to authoritarian state Capitalism as the model for Government.
I'm on a theme now, but the West needs renewal. We need to get out of this mindset that we are rich and powerful, we have always been rich and powerful, and we always will be rich and powerful. It needs to be demonstrated, again, that the rule of law, equity, justice and democracy lead to self confident, rich and happy societies. The development of Russia shows that this is not self evident. It seems that the West thought, following the fall of the Soviet Union, having tried it their way, would fall by default into a pluralistic liberal society. How could they not? What was the alternative at the end of history? Well, we know now.
Certain sections of society bitch and moan about foreign aid, the expense of engaging with the world, the BBC, that too many foreigners come here looking for a better life. All these things are our strengths in the world, and if used properly, can influence the world towards one more of our liking.
Telling one section of our society to shut up about their concerns (however misguided you feel they may be) so that we can demonstrate how wonderful our way of doing things is to others, is a funny way to go about it.
Well, were I seeking office, I might spend more time in persuasion on that point. But those points can be addressed by building for today and for tomorrow. By strengthening our state institutions, providing housing and services fit for purpose, a lot of resource issues around immigration can be dealt with. This can grow the economy by creating happy, healthy and prosperous people who spend money, start businesses and innovate in new existing sectors. By being open to others coming, either permanently or to study, those that come temporarily will forge ties of friendship and when they go back they will contribute to the prosperity of their own country, binding us closer. The problem of immigration is not the immigrants, imo, but the paltry state of services and housing and the lack of opportunity within our own society.
The BBC is a global brand, incredibly well trusted. If we give it more, it can do more. Sure, I might not like Dancing with the Stars, I might not have children and don't watch Peppa Pig but the BBC puts out some cracking documentaries. When something happens in the world, I can choose a broad range of opinion to learn about it, but for facts - especially contentious ones in a developing situation, for me it hasn't happened unless the BBC have it.
It's not about telling a section of society to shut up. People can bitch and moan, and no one will ever persuade everyone to their way of looking at things (pluralism provides self correction and should be fostered), but I believe we are stronger, more influential and prosperous if we are open, tolerant and fair. I believe that we need to build this world, first because it is not self evident that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the best systems of Governance, and secondly if these values are not promoted then others might promote authoritarianism and the arbitrary use of state violence and military power at home and abroad. And we will not be immune to such thinking in such a world.
At the root of it all, I suppose, my view is that an awesome marriage of capitalism and strong state institutions that work for people have created the richest and most prosperous societies yet known. My feeling, and it is mostly a feeling, is that we have tilted slightly to a view where people work for the benefit of Capitalism. That the making of money is the goal of capitalism makes it an engine of the economy but that shouldn't mean that wealth is the end goal of society. Money is a tool, with which society can improve itself, only if it is organised to do so. Capitalism instead needs to be made to work for people. If the proceeds of capital are made to work for society, I think an open, tolerant society can be built. It can exported and promote itself. We can make the End of History, but we have to make it, it won't just happen.
So how much extra do you personally give to the BBC ?
Is this todays meme?
We should do more for refugees. - How many have you taken in? We should improve the BBC - How much extra have you paid? We should improve the NHS - Did you bother to train as a doctor?
When someone says we should 'give' more to the BBC I'm curious as to where they think this extra money is coming from.
The "we" gives it away.
Does it ?
Then why doesn't he say "I think we should pay more tax to fund the BBC" ?
Then perhaps we could discuss why the number of politicians advocating such a policy appears to be minimal.
My broader point was more about growing the pie, as it were, through investment (borrowing or increased tax). Within that, public services certainly play a role. There is an economic benefit to society if people don't have to fund their own healthcare costs directly, for example. That leaves people money to spend on other things, which collectively makes everyone richer. If the tax base is larger, or generally richer, then tax intake increases and the Government has more to play with.
Nice gain for the Greens in Occupied East Leicestershire:
Last night's by-election results: Herts CC, Hitchin S: LD hold N Herts, Hitchin Highbury: LD hold Herefs, Bromyard W: result awaited Rutland, Ryhall/Casterton: Grn gain from C
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Not that surprising, most of Africa was neutral in the Cold War apart from South Africa but the National Party have been replaced by the ANC who are hardly going to follow exactly the same pro US policy as their pro apartheid previous opponents. India was neutral in the Cold War too and China was Communist in the Cold War and still is and closer to Russia than the West today.
At least most African nations on that poll oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine even if they still want to so business with Russia
It is Francophone Africa that is more Pro-Russian. I suspect mostly a historical legacy of Soviet support for liberation movements than a sophisticated understanding of current Russia.
Just worth noting that support for Ukraine is not a slam-dunk across the world. Much is neutral or even leaning to Putin, or perhaps more accurately against Western expansionism. A legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism in the post independence era.
In case of any doubt, I do not regard NATO or the EU as expansionist. Membership is voluntary, and reversible, and not aggressive.
Africa neutral in the Cold War? Hmmm.
Quite a lot of it wasn't.
Angola, Mozambique, Libya, Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, and others.
Though of course it's more complex than 'aligned or neutral', as there was a lot of buying favours and sponsoring 'movements'.
In the Cold War most of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and India were neutral. They will still be neutral now on Putin, albeit Latin American countries did vote to condemn the Russian invasion in the UN general assembly, albeit the ANC government in South Africa is less anti Russian than the National Government was and abstained on the UN vote
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
‘Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship’
Golly, I hadn’t realised things had gone that badly for Gove. The Vinester is merciless.
Pathetic response
Lot of sanctimony on here the morn. Or rather even more sanctimony than usual.
Are you going to take in a Ukrainian refugee
Are you? Not sure if you’ve understood the meaning of sanctimony if you’re doing the ‘how dare you make a joke about a Tory, why aren’t you doing X’ thing. I bet you’d have been one of those types handing out white feathers 107 years ago.
I have already said at our age my wife and I could not, but then your nasty responses do not contribute and as you have not responded then it can be taken you are not going to volunteer
If you aren't going to take in a Ukranian refugee then best STFU about calling other people out about it.
Why - it is a fair question and many will as demonstrated on here
I am not calling anyone out as many will have a good reason not to
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Nice gain for the Greens in Occupied East Leicestershire:
Last night's by-election results: Herts CC, Hitchin S: LD hold N Herts, Hitchin Highbury: LD hold Herefs, Bromyard W: result awaited Rutland, Ryhall/Casterton: Grn gain from C
My in laws used to live in Ryhall.
Tories also held the Buckhurst Hill West Parish by election last night I helped in 53% to 47% for the Residents' candidate
Can that be used as a subsample? What were the main policy differences between Con and RP?
Residents are posher that Conservatives and are more against new housing.
Yes Residents voters tend to be members of the town society, home owners and opposed to any new development.
Even if many of them vote Tory nationally they tend to hate the Tory Council wherever it is
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
If @OnlyLivingBoy bought his property in Wales he would face Drakeford's latest 300% council tax increase for second homes
With tremendous apologies for linking from ConHome, not one of my usual haunts (nevertheless a short ban may be appropriate), a rather interesting twisting tale of confusing police and electoral commission conflicting advice on the law as it relates to secret ballots and that bastion of good electoral conduct, Tower Hamlets.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
‘Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship’
Golly, I hadn’t realised things had gone that badly for Gove. The Vinester is merciless.
Pathetic response
Lot of sanctimony on here the morn. Or rather even more sanctimony than usual.
Are you going to take in a Ukrainian refugee
Are you? Not sure if you’ve understood the meaning of sanctimony if you’re doing the ‘how dare you make a joke about a Tory, why aren’t you doing X’ thing. I bet you’d have been one of those types handing out white feathers 107 years ago.
I have already said at our age my wife and I could not, but then your nasty responses do not contribute and as you have not responded then it can be taken you are not going to volunteer
If you aren't going to take in a Ukranian refugee then best STFU about calling other people out about it.
C'mon, Big G stripped to the waist in the PB pub car park bellowing about folk taking refugees while simultaneously bleating piteously that he's too decrepit for same is pretty funny.
I've just realised the Commonwealth Games are being held in Birmingham this summer.
That had totally passed me by.
Even though I often mentioned it in my list of feel good factors that might save Boris in the second half of the year? Emma at Wimbledon; Commonwealth Games in Birmingham; Rugby League World Cup up north; England wins the World Cup in November/December.
Platinum Jubilee is another one.
Hasn't the feelgood factor been disproved, or at least had heavy skepticism applied to it, on here a few times? Aside from a bunting covered Hermes returning victorious from the South Atlantic, are there many obvious cases of it having a political effect?
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
There are stacks of people ready to do exactly that - including many Ukrainians already in the UK trying to get their sisters / nieces here to safety.
There is this myth - no, lets call it what it is, a lie - propagated by the Tories to placate the "no forrin invaders we're British" wing of their supporters that there is nowhere to house refugees.
Having seen the work done by organisations like Tees Valley of Sanctuary there is *plenty* we can and already do offer to refugees.
We only need to find the shared humanity that every other country in Europe offered weeks ago.
Are you willing to take in a Ukrainian refugee family
Why? That's not how the system works. There are *Ukrainians* trying to take in their own family members. And other people's family members. And refugee groups like the one I mentioned up and down the country working with local authorities and housing trusts who have properties they get housed in.
They aren't nice houses in nice areas. They are the houses that nobody wants. But they are safer than back home.
It is how the sponsorship scheme works
So? That we are forcing refugees to apply for a visa is a disgrace as I have been saying for weeks before it became fashionable for right-wing media peeps to grow a conscience.
GDP growth is always quoted as real GDP growth ("Monthly real gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to have grown by 0.8% in January 2022") not nominal growth for precisely that reason, nominal growth would be even higher. Real growth means after inflation, so you can discount inflation as a factor (unless of course incorrect data is being used but that applies to all such statistics and is why revisions happen).
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
Here's a view of your number 9:
One of the first pictures I snapped after getting my microlight licence. Seeing the Wiltshire and Oxfordshire sites from low level whilst being still outside is one of the strengths of microlights.
I knew someone who said they didn't like Wiltshire as it was too flat.
I'm far too afraid to heights to go gliding or microlighting, but its very popular round here.
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
There are stacks of people ready to do exactly that - including many Ukrainians already in the UK trying to get their sisters / nieces here to safety.
There is this myth - no, lets call it what it is, a lie - propagated by the Tories to placate the "no forrin invaders we're British" wing of their supporters that there is nowhere to house refugees.
Having seen the work done by organisations like Tees Valley of Sanctuary there is *plenty* we can and already do offer to refugees.
We only need to find the shared humanity that every other country in Europe offered weeks ago.
Are you willing to take in a Ukrainian refugee family
Why? That's not how the system works. There are *Ukrainians* trying to take in their own family members. And other people's family members. And refugee groups like the one I mentioned up and down the country working with local authorities and housing trusts who have properties they get housed in.
They aren't nice houses in nice areas. They are the houses that nobody wants. But they are safer than back home.
It is how the sponsorship scheme works
So? That we are forcing refugees to apply for a visa is a disgrace as I have been saying for weeks before it became fashionable for right-wing media peeps to grow a conscience.
Why is it a disgrace?
The refugees are already in safe harbours. If someone wants to sponsor a refugee to come over then that is fantastic, good for them and give out a visa accordingly.
If you want more refugees able to come, sponsor more visas yourself. Anyone can do it.
I've just realised the Commonwealth Games are being held in Birmingham this summer.
That had totally passed me by.
Even though I often mentioned it in my list of feel good factors that might save Boris in the second half of the year? Emma at Wimbledon; Commonwealth Games in Birmingham; Rugby League World Cup up north; England wins the World Cup in November/December.
Platinum Jubilee is another one.
Scotland winning the World Cup leading to a lightweight Tory wave north of the border?
Suspect it would be much better known if the stones were re-erected.
I mentioned the nearby Nine Ladies earlier, which I have visited many times - and slept at.
However - and this seems slightly crazy to me - I've driven near to Arbor Low hundreds of times, and walked near to it on a fair few. But I've never been to see it. And I like henges. I'm always doing other things when I'm near it.
Arbor Low is in private ownership of a farmer, and operates on an honesty box system.
I'd say combine it with a second nearby visit. It is great, but won't keep you occupied for half a day unlike say Avebury. There's also a Burial Barrow nearby.
You could combine with a walk down Lathkill Dale, or walk or cycle around Carsington Water or Ladybower Res, or if you want another local ancient/modern tradition look up the Well Dressing calendar (https://www.visitpeakdistrict.com/whats-on/well-dressings) , or crawl a couple of local ancient churches.
Thanks. I used to spend most of my time in the Peak District, so I've 'done' Well Dressing, Carsington Water (my dad's company worked on a small part of that), Ladybower, and Lathkill, many times. It's why I'm surprised I've never done Arbor Low, considering how near it is to the Ashbourne-Buxton road...
Putin appears to be truly unhappy with the FSB in Ukraine: he attacked the 5 Service SOiMS (FSB's foreign Intelligence branch). Sergei Beseda, head of the Service, and his deputy Bolukh, head of the DOI, placed under house arrest, according to my sources inside.
Dunno how reliable this source is, but it was retweeted by @paulwaugh
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
Here's a view of your number 9:
One of the first pictures I snapped after getting my microlight licence. Seeing the Wiltshire and Oxfordshire sites from low level whilst being still outside is one of the strengths of microlights.
It's testament to our long history of Islamophobia that we call them Sarsen stones.
"Putin appears to be truly unhappy with the FSB in Ukraine: he attacked the 5 Service SOiMS (FSB's foreign Intelligence branch). Sergei Beseda, head of the Service, and his deputy Bolukh, head of the DOI, placed under house arrest, according to my sources inside."
Usually reliable source. You know that things are going well when 3 weeks into a 1 week special military operation you put the head and deputy head of one of your intelligence services under house arrest.
Reportedly Ukraine counter attacked around Chernihiv to extend the cordon around them last night, plenty of new videos of burning Russian vehicles today.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
100% agreed, planning restrictions are the problem.
If someone buys a BTL property and wants to charge too much for it, then under a free market solution someone else should be able to build another property next door to it and charge less - whether that be for rental, or for someone to buy.
It is the block on building new homes that is the artificial constraint which BTL aggravates, fix the real problem and the problem with BTL goes away.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
With tremendous apologies for linking from ConHome, not one of my usual haunts (nevertheless a short ban may be appropriate), a rather interesting twisting tale of confusing police and electoral commission conflicting advice on the law as it relates to secret ballots and that bastion of good electoral conduct, Tower Hamlets.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affordable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
Here's a view of your number 9:
One of the first pictures I snapped after getting my microlight licence. Seeing the Wiltshire and Oxfordshire sites from low level whilst being still outside is one of the strengths of microlights.
It's testament to our long history of Islamophobia that we call them Sarsen stones.
Is it derived from saracen then? I'd never heard that before.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
If @OnlyLivingBoy bought his property in Wales he would face Drakeford's latest 300% council tax increase for second homes
I think that is not correct.
The home would have a family living in it, so it would not be eligible for the council tax surcharge.
Drakeford (at the prodding of Plaid Cymru) is trying to tackle the problem of second homes left largely empty all the year round.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affirdable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
"we have enough for the well off and those already on the property ladder" . . . oh that's OK then. Screw everyone else.
We should have new homes built where people want them. Let people choose. Barring nature reserves etc anywhere they want to live, if there's no home there, let them build one. The supply will match the demand only then.
I have come to the conclusion that the best policy in Ukraine is to make things as difficult as possible for the Russians on every possible level. Militarily, economically, politically. The aim should be the ruin of this dictatorship.
While condemnation of Russia around Europe, North America (outside the alt right) and other developed counties is high, that is not universal. China and India are leaning pro-Russia, and much of Africa too. This poll in the Economist of Africa is sobering.
Has the west ceded it's influence in the rest of the world? I wondered this when Trump was talking about pulling out of European and particularly German bases because they were expensive and the Europeans ungrateful. I just wondered how an American president could be so stupid to surrender such strategic influence.
The West's power has always been in the strength of its relationships, with their societies acting as a model for prosperity. Now what are we an example of? Quick dodgy money and hypocrisy? 'We' should be out there, building the world. If we don't, we leave it others. China is ensuring all roads lead to Beijing and the countries they pass through will increasingly look to authoritarian state Capitalism as the model for Government.
I'm on a theme now, but the West needs renewal. We need to get out of this mindset that we are rich and powerful, we have always been rich and powerful, and we always will be rich and powerful. It needs to be demonstrated, again, that the rule of law, equity, justice and democracy lead to self confident, rich and happy societies. The development of Russia shows that this is not self evident. It seems that the West thought, following the fall of the Soviet Union, having tried it their way, would fall by default into a pluralistic liberal society. How could they not? What was the alternative at the end of history? Well, we know now.
Certain sections of society bitch and moan about foreign aid, the expense of engaging with the world, the BBC, that too many foreigners come here looking for a better life. All these things are our strengths in the world, and if used properly, can influence the world towards one more of our liking.
Telling one section of our society to shut up about their concerns (however misguided you feel they may be) so that we can demonstrate how wonderful our way of doing things is to others, is a funny way to go about it.
Well, were I seeking office, I might spend more time in persuasion on that point. But those points can be addressed by building for today and for tomorrow. By strengthening our state institutions, providing housing and services fit for purpose, a lot of resource issues around immigration can be dealt with. This can grow the economy by creating happy, healthy and prosperous people who spend money, start businesses and innovate in new existing sectors. By being open to others coming, either permanently or to study, those that come temporarily will forge ties of friendship and when they go back they will contribute to the prosperity of their own country, binding us closer. The problem of immigration is not the immigrants, imo, but the paltry state of services and housing and the lack of opportunity within our own society.
The BBC is a global brand, incredibly well trusted. If we give it more, it can do more. Sure, I might not like Dancing with the Stars, I might not have children and don't watch Peppa Pig but the BBC puts out some cracking documentaries. When something happens in the world, I can choose a broad range of opinion to learn about it, but for facts - especially contentious ones in a developing situation, for me it hasn't happened unless the BBC have it.
It's not about telling a section of society to shut up. People can bitch and moan, and no one will ever persuade everyone to their way of looking at things (pluralism provides self correction and should be fostered), but I believe we are stronger, more influential and prosperous if we are open, tolerant and fair. I believe that we need to build this world, first because it is not self evident that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are the best systems of Governance, and secondly if these values are not promoted then others might promote authoritarianism and the arbitrary use of state violence and military power at home and abroad. And we will not be immune to such thinking in such a world.
At the root of it all, I suppose, my view is that an awesome marriage of capitalism and strong state institutions that work for people have created the richest and most prosperous societies yet known. My feeling, and it is mostly a feeling, is that we have tilted slightly to a view where people work for the benefit of Capitalism. That the making of money is the goal of capitalism makes it an engine of the economy but that shouldn't mean that wealth is the end goal of society. Money is a tool, with which society can improve itself, only if it is organised to do so. Capitalism instead needs to be made to work for people. If the proceeds of capital are made to work for society, I think an open, tolerant society can be built. It can exported and promote itself. We can make the End of History, but we have to make it, it won't just happen.
So how much extra do you personally give to the BBC ?
Is this todays meme?
We should do more for refugees. - How many have you taken in? We should improve the BBC - How much extra have you paid? We should improve the NHS - Did you bother to train as a doctor?
When someone says we should 'give' more to the BBC I'm curious as to where they think this extra money is coming from.
The "we" gives it away.
Does it ?
Then why doesn't he say "I think we should pay more tax to fund the BBC" ?
Then perhaps we could discuss why the number of politicians advocating such a policy appears to be minimal.
My broader point was more about growing the pie, as it were, through investment (borrowing or increased tax). Within that, public services certainly play a role. There is an economic benefit to society if people don't have to fund their own healthcare costs directly, for example. That leaves people money to spend on other things, which collectively makes everyone richer. If the tax base is larger, or generally richer, then tax intake increases and the Government has more to play with.
Growing the economy through investment sounds nice but is a lot easier said than done.
It also then leads to disagreements as to how and where and what with this investment led growth is to happen.
That's without the 'investment' turning into general voter bribing, consumption funding and pet project funding.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affirdable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
"we have enough for the well off and those already on the property ladder" . . . oh that's OK then. Screw everyone else.
We should have new homes built where people want them. Let people choose. Barring nature reserves etc anywhere they want to live, if there's no home there, let them build one. The supply will match the demand only then.
No because you need to build in areas appropriate for the town, which protect green spaces and have appropriate infrastructure
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
Ok, if we implemented your free planning policies then yes the problems are very different (there would be many problems with it, but different ones). But we are not going to, no major politician is even vaguely interested.
So what can we do within the current system? Tax assets more, especially BTL, and income less, along with giving tenants further rights.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
Morning all! Another day of our disgrace as we continue to turn away women and children fleeing death.
Who have we actually turned away ? Who have we actually put at risk of death.
I agree it is a shambles for sure and something that is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. A bureaucratic mess and we need to solve it. However how are we putting people at risk of death if they are in mainland Europe ?
Who have we turned away? Swathes of examples. Many posted on here by Scott.
Are they are risk of death by Russians in France? No. Does that mean we are right to have an absolute blockade on Urkainian refugees? No. Everyone else in Europe has opened their doors. We put in a bullshit visa scheme and they deny people the ability access it (again, swathes of examples posted online where you can't get appointments or even where the place to get appointments is a figment of Patel's deranged smirk).
We used to be a decent country. What happened to us?
Uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe after Polish etc accession to the EU. We could have limited access to benefits (for instance, as many other EU countries did/do). We did not. I think most who came worked (in both the legal sphere and black economy, but the perception was of instant access to housing and benefits ahead of UK citizens (for housing). The British are generally welcoming, tolerant people, but the dramatic influx of people in some places had huge impacts, and it upset people.
So that led to the rise of Ukip. And everything else, including the home office now being the way it is.
Plus there are an awful lot of people around the world who would love to come to the UK, but aren't strictly able to claim asylum. The country is not able to take them all.
The current situation with Ukraine should be totally different. This should be akin to putting people up when their home has been flooded. Look after them when they need it and they will go home when they can. That the home office, or Patel, or both is so tone death to see that is the scandal.
There is justifiable criticism of Patel who should be out of office but it is interesting that Gove is seeking Ukraine refugee sponsorship and I would ask how many of HMG critics will offer their home as part of this scheme
Unfortunately at our age we could not but hope many will thereby making a tangible difference
There are stacks of people ready to do exactly that - including many Ukrainians already in the UK trying to get their sisters / nieces here to safety.
There is this myth - no, lets call it what it is, a lie - propagated by the Tories to placate the "no forrin invaders we're British" wing of their supporters that there is nowhere to house refugees.
Having seen the work done by organisations like Tees Valley of Sanctuary there is *plenty* we can and already do offer to refugees.
We only need to find the shared humanity that every other country in Europe offered weeks ago.
On Tees Valley of Sanctuary, do they have the research to show they are not applying undue pressure to people in the housing market, or - for example - people on housing waiting lists? Are there any of the type of issues eg analogous with Oxfam's Commercial Bookshops, which nonetheless get free stock, free volunteer staff, funding from a charity that avoids tax, and 80% off business rates?
For a bungalow I sold recently, the highest offer was from a charity (specialist Housing Association?) wanting to buy it for someone to live in who needed a well-restored, accessible home. They have observable advantages over others in the market.
I'd say that LuckyGuy's initiative is admirable, but I hope that he is used to tangling with the rather vicious regulation of rentals, especially in London and a few other places. The pen-pushers and box-tickers won't let up on him because it's for refugees.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
What if a large family wants a 4 bed? Or a 5 bed?
Is your attitude just "oh well, sucks to be you, I've got mine".
Let people build whatever they want, wherever they want it, apart from zones marked as uninhabitable for anyone because they're reserved for other things like nature.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
Our economy has been open to these young first time buyers:
Lavrov gave numerous speeches about the evil anglo-saxon world and the awful liberal western countries who want to destroy Russia and Ukraine. So why on Earth does his step-daughter live in the centre of London? Why not in Crimea or Donbass, why doesn’t she move there? https://t.co/YPuCAB5hhV
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
What if a large family wants a 4 bed? Or a 5 bed?
Is your attitude just "oh well, sucks to be you, I've got mine".
Let people build whatever they want, wherever they want it, apart from zones marked as uninhabitable for anyone because they're reserved for other things like nature.
Houses don't exist in isolation. What about the schools, hospitals?
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affirdable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
"we have enough for the well off and those already on the property ladder" . . . oh that's OK then. Screw everyone else.
We should have new homes built where people want them. Let people choose. Barring nature reserves etc anywhere they want to live, if there's no home there, let them build one. The supply will match the demand only then.
No because you need to build in areas appropriate for the town, which protect green spaces and have appropriate infrastructure
Mark green spaces as reserved and have constructions allowed anywhere else.
You don't need the "appropriate infrastructure" first, you can build the homes first and the infrastructure can be invested in afterwards if need be. Infrastructure evolves over time, it isn't fixed.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
Here's a view of your number 9:
One of the first pictures I snapped after getting my microlight licence. Seeing the Wiltshire and Oxfordshire sites from low level whilst being still outside is one of the strengths of microlights.
It's testament to our long history of Islamophobia that we call them Sarsen stones.
Is it derived from saracen then? I'd never heard that before.
Yes, and it's thought they might have been given the name by the Knights Templar based in Rockley. They knew a thing or two about pagans.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
Whilst I agree with you, I think this is the only way we end up with 350 LibDems MPs in Parliament .... all cackling about the Green Belt and Concreting over Rural England
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
What if a large family wants a 4 bed? Or a 5 bed?
Is your attitude just "oh well, sucks to be you, I've got mine".
Let people build whatever they want, wherever they want it, apart from zones marked as uninhabitable for anyone because they're reserved for other things like nature.
Houses don't exist in isolation. What about the schools, hospitals?
What about them? People can drive to an existing school or hospital in almost all of the country.
If a school or hospital ends up getting overcrowded you can always invest in expanding it, or invest in a new one which improves the infrastructure for everyone.
Blocking construction "until the infrastructure is built" is just an excuse to not do anything at all. Let people use whatever pre-existing infrastructure already exists, if there's not enough for them they're not likely to want to go there, and invest in more as and when it is needed.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affirdable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
"we have enough for the well off and those already on the property ladder" . . . oh that's OK then. Screw everyone else.
We should have new homes built where people want them. Let people choose. Barring nature reserves etc anywhere they want to live, if there's no home there, let them build one. The supply will match the demand only then.
No because you need to build in areas appropriate for the town, which protect green spaces and have appropriate infrastructure
Mark green spaces as reserved and have constructions allowed anywhere else.
You don't need the "appropriate infrastructure" first, you can build the homes first and the infrastructure can be invested in afterwards if need be. Infrastructure evolves over time, it isn't fixed.
Wrong.
Take a leaf out of the book of the Victorians/Edwardians. They lad out suburbs. Built the roads, drains, railways. Flogged the plots of land for building the houses by the street (or side of the street). Which is why you get a street or one side of the street all looking similar, but the next street was down by a different property developer.
"Putin appears to be truly unhappy with the FSB in Ukraine: he attacked the 5 Service SOiMS (FSB's foreign Intelligence branch). Sergei Beseda, head of the Service, and his deputy Bolukh, head of the DOI, placed under house arrest, according to my sources inside."
Usually reliable source. You know that things are going well when 3 weeks into a 1 week special military operation you put the head and deputy head of one of your intelligence services under house arrest.
Reportedly Ukraine counter attacked around Chernihiv to extend the cordon around them last night, plenty of new videos of burning Russian vehicles today.
It would be nice to think that people in the FSB and Russian military are out to get Putin.
With a sensible "unofficial" pact between Lib Dems and Labour in 2024, the Tories are going to have a load of problems. I think laying Tory majority seems a good bet
Suspect it would be much better known if the stones were re-erected.
I mentioned the nearby Nine Ladies earlier, which I have visited many times - and slept at.
However - and this seems slightly crazy to me - I've driven near to Arbor Low hundreds of times, and walked near to it on a fair few. But I've never been to see it. And I like henges. I'm always doing other things when I'm near it.
Arbor Low is in private ownership of a farmer, and operates on an honesty box system.
I'd say combine it with a second nearby visit. It is great, but won't keep you occupied for half a day unlike say Avebury. There's also a Burial Barrow nearby.
You could combine with a walk down Lathkill Dale, or walk or cycle around Carsington Water or Ladybower Res, or if you want another local ancient/modern tradition look up the Well Dressing calendar (https://www.visitpeakdistrict.com/whats-on/well-dressings) , or crawl a couple of local ancient churches.
Thanks. I used to spend most of my time in the Peak District, so I've 'done' Well Dressing, Carsington Water (my dad's company worked on a small part of that), Ladybower, and Lathkill, many times. It's why I'm surprised I've never done Arbor Low, considering how near it is to the Ashbourne-Buxton road...
I did Lathkill Dale end to end from school when 8 or 9.
The main negative thing I remember is the very long climb up into Monyash.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affirdable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
"we have enough for the well off and those already on the property ladder" . . . oh that's OK then. Screw everyone else.
We should have new homes built where people want them. Let people choose. Barring nature reserves etc anywhere they want to live, if there's no home there, let them build one. The supply will match the demand only then.
No because you need to build in areas appropriate for the town, which protect green spaces and have appropriate infrastructure
Mark green spaces as reserved and have constructions allowed anywhere else.
You don't need the "appropriate infrastructure" first, you can build the homes first and the infrastructure can be invested in afterwards if need be. Infrastructure evolves over time, it isn't fixed.
Wrong.
Take a leaf out of the book of the Victorians/Edwardians. They lad out suburbs. Built the roads, drains, railways. Flogged the plots of land for building the houses by the street (or side of the street). Which is why you get a street or one side of the street all looking similar, but the next street was down by a different property developer.
Yes I'm perfectly fine with that, if people want to do that. But if someone wants to build elsewhere that should be OK too.
And generally people are saying infrastructure they mean other stuff like schools/hospitals etc - that can evolve over time, it isn't needed per-house.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
Second homes are not the overall cause of the housing crisis - though they have profound effects in certain localities.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
BREAK: The Metropolitan Police breached the rights of organisers of a vigil for Sarah Everard with its handling of the planned event, High Court judges have ruled.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
If @OnlyLivingBoy bought his property in Wales he would face Drakeford's latest 300% council tax increase for second homes
I think that is not correct.
The home would have a family living in it, so it would not be eligible for the council tax surcharge.
Drakeford (at the prodding of Plaid Cymru) is trying to tackle the problem of second homes left largely empty all the year round.
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
Yes that's completely true but you're missing the point.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We don't need any more BTL properties built, only 1 to 3 bed affordable homes for first time buyers in London and the Home counties
Our economy has been open to these young first time buyers:
Lavrov gave numerous speeches about the evil anglo-saxon world and the awful liberal western countries who want to destroy Russia and Ukraine. So why on Earth does his step-daughter live in the centre of London? Why not in Crimea or Donbass, why doesn’t she move there? https://t.co/YPuCAB5hhV
I doubt there are many £4million properties in Crimea or Donbas......
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Exactly, we have enough BTL and we have enough large detached houses for the well off and those already on the property ladder.
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affirdable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
"we have enough for the well off and those already on the property ladder" . . . oh that's OK then. Screw everyone else.
We should have new homes built where people want them. Let people choose. Barring nature reserves etc anywhere they want to live, if there's no home there, let them build one. The supply will match the demand only then.
No because you need to build in areas appropriate for the town, which protect green spaces and have appropriate infrastructure
Mark green spaces as reserved and have constructions allowed anywhere else.
You don't need the "appropriate infrastructure" first, you can build the homes first and the infrastructure can be invested in afterwards if need be. Infrastructure evolves over time, it isn't fixed.
Wrong.
Take a leaf out of the book of the Victorians/Edwardians. They lad out suburbs. Built the roads, drains, railways. Flogged the plots of land for building the houses by the street (or side of the street). Which is why you get a street or one side of the street all looking similar, but the next street was down by a different property developer.
Yes I'm perfectly fine with that, if people want to do that. But if someone wants to build elsewhere that should be OK too.
And generally people are saying infrastructure they mean other stuff like schools/hospitals etc - that can evolve over time, it isn't needed per-house.
Unless you build it as part of the development - the public infrastructure is never built.
Prime example is round here and secondary schools where the new estate was built with a promise of a new secondary school - it was never built so anyone living on that estate has a choice of either turning Catholic or a school that has gone through 5 academy chains with 7 heads in the last 12 years...
It needs to be local. The point of community sponsorship is that the family is welcomed into and supported by the local community. We are part of a volunteer group who have fundraised and applied via the Home Office to welcome a family, there is huge support locally, the only difficulty is finding affordable accommodation, ie a landlord willing to forego most of the rental yield on their property. My wife and I have decided that we may have to be those landlords. We are lucky to be in a financial position to do that. But the ethics of the situation certainly aren't clear-cut, a reason why we have steered clear of becoming buy to let landlords up to now.
It sounds great. And I don't think you should have ethical qualms even if later you become a straightforward BTL landlord. MaxPB will disapprove, but there is a real need for rental homes with decent landlords.
It is not just Max, most people under 40 will disagree with encouraging more BTL.
The problem with the whole "BTL is evil" thing is that it is missing the point. The BTL aren't stealing the housing and shipping it to China or Russia. The problem is that there aren't enough properties for the number of people in the country.
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
That assumes renting and buying give similar experiences. They don't. Especially with the UK laws, although many of them have improved a touch over the last decade.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Who owns them only matters if the quantity of homes is fixed.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
If people know they are in a home for the next 10-20 years they can act very differently to if they know their contract is for 6 months.
All of this is true - but it comes back to property shortages. If the number of properties matches or exceeds demand, prices will fall rapidly. Both rental and for purchase.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
These are not immovable beasts. Tax second homes more and landlords can afford to pay less relative to wannabee homeowners. That is a desirable outcome for society, just not the part of society that votes for the establishment party in power. It really is not rocket science.
Second homes are not the overall cause of the housing crisis - though they have profound effects in certain localities.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
I meant second homes as in people who own more than one home including landlords, rather than solely your seaside cottage types.
Comments
Private school in Cheltenham, Oxbridge, Oxford University Conservative Association .... I dislike people being parachuted into constituencies with which they have little or zero connection.
They aren't nice houses in nice areas. They are the houses that nobody wants. But they are safer than back home.
BTW 'closer alignment' needs spelling out. And any idea of 50% IT needs to compare with centre right plans to balance the books.
I'd say combine it with a second nearby visit. It is great, but won't keep you occupied for half a day unlike say Avebury. There's also a Burial Barrow nearby.
You could combine with a walk down Lathkill Dale, or walk or cycle around Carsington Water or Ladybower Res, or if you want another local ancient/modern tradition look up the Well Dressing calendar (https://www.visitpeakdistrict.com/whats-on/well-dressings) , or crawl a couple of local ancient churches.
"So people who think they can go there, do a couple of weeks, take some selfies, get some Instagram shots and come home, that is not the way the Ukrainians are viewing the people that go and fight for them. British people should not be doing it."
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-armed-forces-minister-james-heappey-warns-british-troops-and-veterans-not-to-travel-to-country-to-fight-as-they-may-face-prosecution-12562081
The Instagram stuff suggests it is open season on Liz Truss. What a shame.
Then why doesn't he say "I think we should pay more tax to fund the BBC" ?
Then perhaps we could discuss why the number of politicians advocating such a policy appears to be minimal.
Do we reckon Mercedes are holding back at the moment? Seem to be going through the motions in testing - presumably to see if the concept holds up
One of the first pictures I snapped after getting my microlight licence. Seeing the Wiltshire and Oxfordshire sites from low level whilst being still outside is one of the strengths of microlights.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/10/sri-lanka-appeals-to-china-to-ease-debt-burden-amid-economic-crisis
The effects of China's economic colonialism are going to affect many countries.
A widow on 5 live this morning made a good point that should she take in a refugee would her single rate for council tax be affected
What were the main policy differences between Con and RP?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/gdpmonthlyestimateuk/january2022
WW3 is not in the interests of NATO, it is a defensive not offensive alliance. Even Milosevic did not have nuclear weapons like Putin or a military the size of Russia's
Britain is poised to sanction more than 350 members of the Russian Duma today
Ministers confident that changes in law mean there is little chance of successful appeals from those sanctioned
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roman-abramovich-sanctioned-by-british-government-over-links-to-russia-x8rjdmwgh
Pret footfall figures for the pandemic. Overall, consumer-facing business spending in the economy still down 6.4% on pre-pandemic levels.
We're all watching clips of Threads and the day After in my offices near the centre of Sheffield this morning..
I am not calling anyone out as many will have a good reason not to
I tried explaining the housing shortage to relatives from Peru - it took a lot of convincing before they would believe me on the policies here.
It is not just a question of number of homes, but a question of who owns them as well.
Even if many of them vote Tory nationally they tend to hate the Tory Council wherever it is
https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2022/03/peter-golds-how-family-voting-in-tower-hamlets-is-undermining-democracy.html
GDP growth is always quoted as real GDP growth ("Monthly real gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to have grown by 0.8% in January 2022") not nominal growth for precisely that reason, nominal growth would be even higher. Real growth means after inflation, so you can discount inflation as a factor (unless of course incorrect data is being used but that applies to all such statistics and is why revisions happen).
I'm far too afraid to heights to go gliding or microlighting, but its very popular round here.
The refugees are already in safe harbours. If someone wants to sponsor a refugee to come over then that is fantastic, good for them and give out a visa accordingly.
If you want more refugees able to come, sponsor more visas yourself. Anyone can do it.
Putin appears to be truly unhappy with the FSB in Ukraine: he attacked the 5 Service SOiMS (FSB's foreign Intelligence branch). Sergei Beseda, head of the Service, and his deputy Bolukh, head of the DOI, placed under house arrest, according to my sources inside.
Dunno how reliable this source is, but it was retweeted by @paulwaugh
"Putin appears to be truly unhappy with the FSB in Ukraine: he attacked the 5 Service SOiMS (FSB's foreign Intelligence branch). Sergei Beseda, head of the Service, and his deputy Bolukh, head of the DOI, placed under house arrest, according to my sources inside."
Usually reliable source. You know that things are going well when 3 weeks into a 1 week special military operation you put the head and deputy head of one of your intelligence services under house arrest.
Reportedly Ukraine counter attacked around Chernihiv to extend the cordon around them last night, plenty of new videos of burning Russian vehicles today.
If someone buys a BTL property and wants to charge too much for it, then under a free market solution someone else should be able to build another property next door to it and charge less - whether that be for rental, or for someone to buy.
It is the block on building new homes that is the artificial constraint which BTL aggravates, fix the real problem and the problem with BTL goes away.
Unfix the quantity and let people build as many homes as people want to buy and who owns them ceases to matter. Any bad landlords would find themselves owning unoccupied houses that they're forced to pay taxes on because they can't find tenants - while people who want their own homes would be able to just go to the market and get one.
Halting construction gives power to bad landlords because their homes are still "needed" rather than being able to be circumvented and empty.
Not sure that a return to the Squirearchy is what he is planning on, but that is exactly where that goes...
https://ifstudies.org/blog/higher-rent-fewer-babies-housing-costs-and-fertility-decline
If we are going to build new homes we should ensure they are almost all affordable 1 to 3 bed properties for first time buyers, especially in London and the Home counties. That is where the lack of supply is
The home would have a family living in it, so it would not be eligible for the council tax surcharge.
Drakeford (at the prodding of Plaid Cymru) is trying to tackle the problem of second homes left largely empty all the year round.
The only reason people find it hard to own a home is because planning is so difficult. Liberate the planning system and people would be able to get their own home - if a BTL landlord owns a home that's not a problem, since you can just get a different home nearby.
That way the only people renting are those who want to rent, rather than those who have to because they can't get an alternative.
It is the block on getting the different homes built that causes the problem.
We should have new homes built where people want them. Let people choose. Barring nature reserves etc anywhere they want to live, if there's no home there, let them build one. The supply will match the demand only then.
It also then leads to disagreements as to how and where and what with this investment led growth is to happen.
That's without the 'investment' turning into general voter bribing, consumption funding and pet project funding.
So what can we do within the current system? Tax assets more, especially BTL, and income less, along with giving tenants further rights.
Currently, the market clears at what people can *afford to pay*. So every increase in wealth goes to feed The Beast.
Hence people spending £1 million pounds on a terraced house built by a Victorian brickworks as cheap company accommodation for the labourers at the brickworks....
For a bungalow I sold recently, the highest offer was from a charity (specialist Housing Association?) wanting to buy it for someone to live in who needed a well-restored, accessible home. They have observable advantages over others in the market.
I'd say that LuckyGuy's initiative is admirable, but I hope that he is used to tangling with the rather vicious regulation of rentals, especially in London and a few other places. The pen-pushers and box-tickers won't let up on him because it's for refugees.
Is your attitude just "oh well, sucks to be you, I've got mine".
Let people build whatever they want, wherever they want it, apart from zones marked as uninhabitable for anyone because they're reserved for other things like nature.
Lavrov gave numerous speeches about the evil anglo-saxon world and the awful liberal western countries who want to destroy Russia and Ukraine. So why on Earth does his step-daughter live in the centre of London? Why not in Crimea or Donbass, why doesn’t she move there? https://t.co/YPuCAB5hhV
You don't need the "appropriate infrastructure" first, you can build the homes first and the infrastructure can be invested in afterwards if need be. Infrastructure evolves over time, it isn't fixed.
(c.f the Chesham and Amersham by-election).
If a school or hospital ends up getting overcrowded you can always invest in expanding it, or invest in a new one which improves the infrastructure for everyone.
Blocking construction "until the infrastructure is built" is just an excuse to not do anything at all. Let people use whatever pre-existing infrastructure already exists, if there's not enough for them they're not likely to want to go there, and invest in more as and when it is needed.
Take a leaf out of the book of the Victorians/Edwardians. They lad out suburbs. Built the roads, drains, railways. Flogged the plots of land for building the houses by the street (or side of the street). Which is why you get a street or one side of the street all looking similar, but the next street was down by a different property developer.
The main negative thing I remember is the very long climb up into Monyash.
And generally people are saying infrastructure they mean other stuff like schools/hospitals etc - that can evolve over time, it isn't needed per-house.
The reason why second homes, more brown field, unoccupied flats owned by Evul Furriners etc are such popular "solutions" is that they avoid dealing with the actual issue.
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1502232987101843456
Prime example is round here and secondary schools where the new estate was built with a promise of a new secondary school - it was never built so anyone living on that estate has a choice of either turning Catholic or a school that has gone through 5 academy chains with 7 heads in the last 12 years...