The latter two are so close together that I am not surprised to see their positions reversed in some other sources. (However, it seems likely that sanctions have cut Russian production enough so they are clearly in third place now.)
The fourth, fifth, and sixth nations in that list surprised me.
FWIW, the United States is now self sufficient in oil, producing about as much as we consume: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/07/energy-independence-oil-gas-renewables/ "But even that quickly reverted back again. Since last October, we’ve been exporting more than we import each month, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent government statistical agency. That is, we got back to “energy independence” under Biden, but Republicans forgot to update their talking points."
US tight oil production has very high decline rates, so if you stop drilling, your production rapidly falls. (On the other hand, the geological risk is small: you know where the oil is, you just need to drill.)
During Covid, drilling in the US collapse: from about 660-670 working rigs in March 2020 to a low of about 170.
People left to go find other jobs, and even with record oil and gas prices, getting trained rig workers is tough. Basically, we're still only at 574 rigs, although the numbers keep rising.
Same issue in the UK. As soon as the slump comes they lay everyone off and then wonder why most of them don't want to come back when things tick up again. Oil field wages are good but not enough to compensate for 3 or 4 years of no work.
They also fail to invest in people. So it is a massively aging workforce with few people coming into it.
On the positive side Richard, that means that you can choose to retire very gradually.
Sadly not. Tied in with the other discussion I have a large mortgage which, with the best will in the world, I won't get paid off until I am well into my sixties. My choice entirely and I love our place but I am not completely convinced I made the right decision.
You could always do what I did, Richard, and supplement your pension with betting winnings.
You'll find politics a good medium - easy pickings and plenty of sound advice freely available.
Ah. My guilty secret. With the exception of a few one off hundred pound bets on here over the last decade, I don't bet at all. As a student I won a grand back in the mid 80s in a competition. I then proceeded to lose the whole lot in a few weeks in a series of very stupid bets. Since then I have stayed away from betting almost entirely. I also don't do the stock market.
And with that news I await my well deserved expulsion from PB.
Not if I can help it, Richard!
Seriously, politics is a good medium to bet in, but the margins are much tighter than when I started doing so seriously about fifteen years ago.
Ah well, you'll just have to carry on working for a living a bit longer.
Fourthly, the 4% of UK adults, I think 1.3 million adults, do not have a bank account, and 88% of those are on universal credit.
Yeah, this policy has some pretty substantial flaws.
How do they get their UC then? Genuine question.
UC is paid into credit unions or the bank accounts of friends/family.
Isn't that a smack bang recipe for fraud? We heard just this week 13% of UC claims were fraudulent. Imagine if the fraudsters could enter the mortgage market. Making a bank account a right might be easier.
HSBC have been great for helping the great unbanked in getting bank accounts.
Challenger banks, such as Monzo, are also great as they don't run credit checks when opening accounts, only identity checks.
It just needs someone at the DWP to go the extra mile to help these people.
But yes, the recipe for fraud is great.
In my work for Citizens Advice over the past three years I haven't come across anyone who hasn't got a bank account. Sure, they are basic no frills no credit accounts but they are still accounts.
I am not sure what benefits one can get without a bank account these days.
Quite a lot of polling support for them in today's Yougov:
38% support, 49% oppose the striking workers.
Support strongest with the under 65s.
4.2% in Scotland and most likely to be in that ball park
The rail unions need to note that we have bailed out rail £16bn in the last few years cos no one is using it
I am pro rail but the Government needs to say we can't afford these pay rises, if you want it then it must be met from commercially generated revenue, no more subsidies and if that means 80% of the network closes so be it. Never thought I would say that!
Par is about a subsidy of £4-6bn per year but it should be noted that's not a free lunch.
Without much of it traffic would either simply cascade onto congested roads, damaging them and increasing costs further and reducing economic growth. In other areas cutting back services entirely would totally isolate some communities.
What we need to look at is how we return to those sort of levels given usage patterns post-Covid and get back on a sustainable footing.
Yes it was about £1bn in 1980 so as you say £4 to £6bn today.
Your response is far more considered than mine and is correct, I am just fed up with rail unions demanding the impossible given what the general population is facing
Yes, I do. You might be thinking it's justified but they don't have the leverage.
Pay settlement will be constrained this year and the 4.2% offer by Scotland seems fair
Fair to those for whom a 4.2% rise is a real-terms pay cut? House prices going through the roof, petrol is on fire. Even food prices are piling on the pounds. A 4.2% nominal rise in these conditions means those workers are poorer.
Whilst I see your point, that is what is facing everyone. And you can be certain very few private companies will be able to afford to give people even a 4.2% pay rise this year.
From what I have seen, retiring in your 50s is often a big mistake. I've seen a couple of people go downhill fast in their 60s after retiring in their 50s. A couple of people I know started new careers in the public sector in their 50s, which they have both been successful in and are highly respected. The impression I get is that working full time is good in your 50s and early 60s. Probably best to wind down significantly though in your late 60s. Thats what I plan to do, even though I may not need to from a financial point of view, particularly if this house price inflation keeps going strong.
I took 4 months off work last year and it was a really good experience. I hadn't taken a serious amount of time off work for 15 years. I took a few holidays etc. But the experience made me realise that if I stop work, life becomes meaningless. The best thing to do is to find work that is meaningful and that you enjoy.
I am exactly the opposite. I have always said that I could retire tomorrow on only enough to live on - so no expensive holidays or fancy toys - live to be120 and never be bored a day in my life. My trouble is time. I don't have anywhere near enough of it.
The latter two are so close together that I am not surprised to see their positions reversed in some other sources. (However, it seems likely that sanctions have cut Russian production enough so they are clearly in third place now.)
The fourth, fifth, and sixth nations in that list surprised me.
FWIW, the United States is now self sufficient in oil, producing about as much as we consume: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/07/energy-independence-oil-gas-renewables/ "But even that quickly reverted back again. Since last October, we’ve been exporting more than we import each month, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent government statistical agency. That is, we got back to “energy independence” under Biden, but Republicans forgot to update their talking points."
US tight oil production has very high decline rates, so if you stop drilling, your production rapidly falls. (On the other hand, the geological risk is small: you know where the oil is, you just need to drill.)
During Covid, drilling in the US collapse: from about 660-670 working rigs in March 2020 to a low of about 170.
People left to go find other jobs, and even with record oil and gas prices, getting trained rig workers is tough. Basically, we're still only at 574 rigs, although the numbers keep rising.
Same issue in the UK. As soon as the slump comes they lay everyone off and then wonder why most of them don't want to come back when things tick up again. Oil field wages are good but not enough to compensate for 3 or 4 years of no work.
They also fail to invest in people. So it is a massively aging workforce with few people coming into it.
On the positive side Richard, that means that you can choose to retire very gradually.
Sadly not. Tied in with the other discussion I have a large mortgage which, with the best will in the world, I won't get paid off until I am well into my sixties. My choice entirely and I love our place but I am not completely convinced I made the right decision.
Living on 75 acres in one of the highest CoL counties in the US with a huge mortgage, already in my 60s, so sympathize.
That say your two happiest days are the day you buy the farm, and the day you sell it (probably in reverse order).
Yes, I do. You might be thinking it's justified but they don't have the leverage.
Pay settlement will be constrained this year and the 4.2% offer by Scotland seems fair
Fair to those for whom a 4.2% rise is a real-terms pay cut? House prices going through the roof, petrol is on fire. Even food prices are piling on the pounds. A 4.2% nominal rise in these conditions means those workers are poorer.
And that is the problem facing governments around the world
The specific problem right now is yours. You think 4.2% is fair, but you seem to be tacitly accepting my point that this leaves those workers poorer. "Fair" isn't the word I'd reach for here.
From what I have seen, retiring in your 50s is often a big mistake. I've seen a couple of people go downhill fast in their 60s after retiring in their 50s. A couple of people I know started new careers in the public sector in their 50s, which they have both been successful in and are highly respected. The impression I get is that working full time is good in your 50s and early 60s. Probably best to wind down significantly though in your late 60s. Thats what I plan to do, even though I may not need to from a financial point of view, particularly if this house price inflation keeps going strong.
I took 4 months off work last year and it was a really good experience. I hadn't taken a serious amount of time off work for 15 years. I took a few holidays etc. But the experience made me realise that if I stop work, life becomes meaningless. The best thing to do is to find work that is meaningful and that you enjoy.
Fourthly, the 4% of UK adults, I think 1.3 million adults, do not have a bank account, and 88% of those are on universal credit.
Yeah, this policy has some pretty substantial flaws.
How do they get their UC then? Genuine question.
UC is paid into credit unions or the bank accounts of friends/family.
Isn't that a smack bang recipe for fraud? We heard just this week 13% of UC claims were fraudulent. Imagine if the fraudsters could enter the mortgage market. Making a bank account a right might be easier.
HSBC have been great for helping the great unbanked in getting bank accounts.
Challenger banks, such as Monzo, are also great as they don't run credit checks when opening accounts, only identity checks.
It just needs someone at the DWP to go the extra mile to help these people.
But yes, the recipe for fraud is great.
Must say this is something that's always confused me. Why should you refuse a bank account to someone on account of a credit check? You just give them a basic one with no overdraft facility. I don't have an overdraft facility. Nor a credit card.
To assess risk.
It is possible (and easy) to end up in unauthorised overdraft.
Banks have got better in automatically offering/giving people basic bank accounts if they fail the credit check for a normal bank account.
Most basic bank accounts come with no cheque books and debit cards that always check if there are sufficient funds available for the transaction.
I've mentioned my friend who works at a JCP, she says a lot of people just don't understand budgeting or banking.
You and I both know that if we have a regular direct debit that comes out on the 10th of each month and if the 10th falls on a weekend it comes out on a Monday.
A lot of these people don't, and they spend that money.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
There is nothing that this or any government can do to stop us having 6-9 months of misery. Inflation is going to remain high until the new year. Unemployment will edge up. A technical recession is very likely. There are going to be masses of public sector strikes and vain attempts by the government to restrain public sector pay. We are all getting poorer, fast and it is not much fun.
By 2023 Q2 things might start to improve. But until then we all need to buckle down and brace ourselves. A government with a sense of direction and a sense of priorities would help but only at the edges. The biggest problem we have are fuel prices because the delivery costs drive the cost of everything else. Rishi took 5p off duty, it turned out to be less than a week's increase. That shows how futile the government's efforts are in the face of the tsunami. Brace, brace and think of the most vulnerable.
If the Putin regime falls and Russia leaves the Ukraine, then things could normalise very quickly.
Otherwise, it's a long slog while the world - as it always does - replaces lost Russian energy sources with those from Israel*/Mozambique/etc. and renewables.
* The Russian invasion couldn't have come at a better time for Israel's Leviathan field; I seriously thought it might be massively scaled back to just domestic Israeli production, but the Russians have done the Israelis a huge favour
I was thinking... if the Ukraine conflict gets resolved, many of the factors driving up inflation could be instantly curbed. This could have a significant positive economic impact.
Absolutely right: it would spark a significant economic boom.
Rebuilding Ukraine will be an economic stimulus on a global level.
Fourthly, the 4% of UK adults, I think 1.3 million adults, do not have a bank account, and 88% of those are on universal credit.
Yeah, this policy has some pretty substantial flaws.
How do they get their UC then? Genuine question.
UC is paid into credit unions or the bank accounts of friends/family.
Isn't that a smack bang recipe for fraud? We heard just this week 13% of UC claims were fraudulent. Imagine if the fraudsters could enter the mortgage market. Making a bank account a right might be easier.
HSBC have been great for helping the great unbanked in getting bank accounts.
Challenger banks, such as Monzo, are also great as they don't run credit checks when opening accounts, only identity checks.
It just needs someone at the DWP to go the extra mile to help these people.
But yes, the recipe for fraud is great.
Must say this is something that's always confused me. Why should you refuse a bank account to someone on account of a credit check? You just give them a basic one with no overdraft facility. I don't have an overdraft facility. Nor a credit card.
To assess risk.
It is possible (and easy) to end up in unauthorised overdraft.
Banks have got better in automatically offering/giving people basic bank accounts if they fail the credit check for a normal bank account.
Most basic bank accounts come with no cheque books and debit cards that always check if there are sufficient funds available for the transaction.
I've mentioned my friend who works at a JCP, she says a lot of people just don't understand budgeting or banking.
You and I both know that if we have a regular direct debit that comes out on the 10th of each month and if the 10th falls on a weekend it comes out on a Monday.
A lot of these people don't, and they spend that money.
I think it's time to fix that direct debit movement. Banking is now done 24/7 and transactions are automated. There is no need to shift to weekdays.
One of the better policy papers I've seen on helping people get on the property market is allowing rental payments to become part of your credit file.
If you've shown for the past 4 years that you've paid your rent of £750 pcm on time without fail then that should help you get approved from the £600 pcm mortgage you've applied for.
Fourthly, the 4% of UK adults, I think 1.3 million adults, do not have a bank account, and 88% of those are on universal credit.
Yeah, this policy has some pretty substantial flaws.
How do they get their UC then? Genuine question.
UC is paid into credit unions or the bank accounts of friends/family.
Isn't that a smack bang recipe for fraud? We heard just this week 13% of UC claims were fraudulent. Imagine if the fraudsters could enter the mortgage market. Making a bank account a right might be easier.
HSBC have been great for helping the great unbanked in getting bank accounts.
Challenger banks, such as Monzo, are also great as they don't run credit checks when opening accounts, only identity checks.
It just needs someone at the DWP to go the extra mile to help these people.
But yes, the recipe for fraud is great.
Must say this is something that's always confused me. Why should you refuse a bank account to someone on account of a credit check? You just give them a basic one with no overdraft facility. I don't have an overdraft facility. Nor a credit card.
To assess risk.
It is possible (and easy) to end up in unauthorised overdraft.
Banks have got better in automatically offering/giving people basic bank accounts if they fail the credit check for a normal bank account.
Most basic bank accounts come with no cheque books and debit cards that always check if there are sufficient funds available for the transaction.
I've mentioned my friend who works at a JCP, she says a lot of people just don't understand budgeting or banking.
You and I both know that if we have a regular direct debit that comes out on the 10th of each month and if the 10th falls on a weekend it comes out on a Monday.
A lot of these people don't, and they spend that money.
So then. Why not take the money out on a Friday? This seems like excuse making for not wanting the lower orders to have access to a service.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
You may be right. Those landlords pretty much all vote Conservative though, so I cannot see this policy ever being implemented by Johnson and co.
One of the better policy papers I've seen on helping people get on the property market is allowing rental payments to become part of your credit file.
If you've shown for the past 4 years that you've paid your rent of £750 pcm on time without fail then that should help you get approved from the £600 pcm mortgage you've applied for.
I think there should be something like a rental saver where you rent for a certain amount of time and some of that money goes into a pot to pay for a deposit
Fourthly, the 4% of UK adults, I think 1.3 million adults, do not have a bank account, and 88% of those are on universal credit.
Yeah, this policy has some pretty substantial flaws.
How do they get their UC then? Genuine question.
UC is paid into credit unions or the bank accounts of friends/family.
Isn't that a smack bang recipe for fraud? We heard just this week 13% of UC claims were fraudulent. Imagine if the fraudsters could enter the mortgage market. Making a bank account a right might be easier.
HSBC have been great for helping the great unbanked in getting bank accounts.
Challenger banks, such as Monzo, are also great as they don't run credit checks when opening accounts, only identity checks.
It just needs someone at the DWP to go the extra mile to help these people.
But yes, the recipe for fraud is great.
Must say this is something that's always confused me. Why should you refuse a bank account to someone on account of a credit check? You just give them a basic one with no overdraft facility. I don't have an overdraft facility. Nor a credit card.
To assess risk.
It is possible (and easy) to end up in unauthorised overdraft.
Banks have got better in automatically offering/giving people basic bank accounts if they fail the credit check for a normal bank account.
Most basic bank accounts come with no cheque books and debit cards that always check if there are sufficient funds available for the transaction.
I've mentioned my friend who works at a JCP, she says a lot of people just don't understand budgeting or banking.
You and I both know that if we have a regular direct debit that comes out on the 10th of each month and if the 10th falls on a weekend it comes out on a Monday.
A lot of these people don't, and they spend that money.
So then. Why not take the money out on a Friday? This seems like excuse making for not wanting the lower orders to have access to a service.
The flip side is the DD mandate doesn't allow them to take it earlier.
Plus you'd get people complaining, they said they'd take it out on the 10th of every month and they took it out on the 9th.
As Max notes, we should move to seven day banking.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
Fourthly, the 4% of UK adults, I think 1.3 million adults, do not have a bank account, and 88% of those are on universal credit.
Yeah, this policy has some pretty substantial flaws.
How do they get their UC then? Genuine question.
UC is paid into credit unions or the bank accounts of friends/family.
Isn't that a smack bang recipe for fraud? We heard just this week 13% of UC claims were fraudulent. Imagine if the fraudsters could enter the mortgage market. Making a bank account a right might be easier.
HSBC have been great for helping the great unbanked in getting bank accounts.
Challenger banks, such as Monzo, are also great as they don't run credit checks when opening accounts, only identity checks.
It just needs someone at the DWP to go the extra mile to help these people.
But yes, the recipe for fraud is great.
Must say this is something that's always confused me. Why should you refuse a bank account to someone on account of a credit check? You just give them a basic one with no overdraft facility. I don't have an overdraft facility. Nor a credit card.
To assess risk.
It is possible (and easy) to end up in unauthorised overdraft.
Banks have got better in automatically offering/giving people basic bank accounts if they fail the credit check for a normal bank account.
Most basic bank accounts come with no cheque books and debit cards that always check if there are sufficient funds available for the transaction.
I've mentioned my friend who works at a JCP, she says a lot of people just don't understand budgeting or banking.
You and I both know that if we have a regular direct debit that comes out on the 10th of each month and if the 10th falls on a weekend it comes out on a Monday.
A lot of these people don't, and they spend that money.
I think it's time to fix that direct debit movement. Banking is now done 24/7 and transactions are automated. There is no need to shift to weekdays.
Yeah. I sit down every Sunday and look at my accounts. And usually shuffle money cos the rent and DD's go out Monday. It is done instantly. No problems whatsoever. No reason it should go out like that. That's an excuse.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
You may be right. Those landlords pretty much all vote Conservative though, so I cannot see this policy ever being implemented by Johnson and co.
Indeed, which is why last time we discussed this on here when I said this should happen quite a while ago, I don't think it actually got much discussion, because that was the response. So I'm shocked that this has been suggested. Gove is about the one decent person in the Cabinet that will say or do the unthinkable.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
No point arguing. I’ve got the important details on copy of the times here.
Firstly I expect a header saying a week is a long time in politics. What an amazing turn around? Week started with potential PMcide, it ends with all the media given up on applying pressure in him and partygate forgotten, leaving Boris appearing strong and in buoyant spirits. Maybe 1922 should have insisted it had to be Wednesday, Monday evening didn’t allow any momentum to build with resignations etc?
At this end of the week Boris is unveiling eye catching policys for key voters everywhere, everyone’s bills slashed, tax cuts, and people on benefits helped onto the housing ladder without housing stock being diminished, a policy nakedly targeting red wall and marginal votes Labour will struggle to top.
Not only does it look unlikely Tory MPs can oust Boris now, but maybe Labour and Libdems will also struggle to remove his majority too, with Boris going so effectively for voters, evoking the high tide of Thatcherism?
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
Indeed. Though its worth noting that it says HA sales must be replaced one for one, so if sales are stock-neutral then the policy would be a positive since we'd have more home owners, but same number of HA properties, which ultimately means fewer private tenants. Win/win, even if the sale is by the HA initially, they'll be able to offer the replacement home to someone else instead.
The problem is as well as Johnson, even if Gove has come up with good ideas here, will it actually ever get through the Commons and the Lords and see the light of day? As I said, too many Tories have a reflexive hatred of the word benefits so would rather cut off their own nose to spite their face, the Treasury is normally far too short sighted, and Labour don't care enough about getting people into a home of their own. So even if this is what I hope is proposed, will it ever actually happen?
Woke led to the rapes of maybe 100,000 white British girls by Muslim grooming gangs
100,000. Possibly a lot more
Why? Because the intersectional suffering of British Muslims (brown, marginalised, immigrant, poor) was deemed more important, and worthy of protection than “slutty white British girls from difficult backgrounds” who did not count in the hierarchy, and who had no one to protect them, Whereas these rapists had an entire industry of lawyers and diversity officers and the rest pushing their cause, and thereby cowing councillors and police into silence
That’s what Woke does. If your intersectional oppression is deemed more important, tens of thousands of kids get raped
If this is true, why are there no videos on pornhub?
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
No point arguing. I’ve got the important details on copy of the times here.
Firstly I expect a header saying a week is a long time in politics. What an amazing turn around? Week started with potential PMcide, it ends with all the media given up on applying pressure in him and partygate forgotten, leaving Boris appearing strong and in buoyant spirits. Maybe 1922 should have insisted it had to be Wednesday, Monday evening didn’t allow any momentum to build with resignations etc?
At this end of the week Boris is unveiling eye catching policys for key voters everywhere, everyone’s bills slashed, tax cuts, and people on benefits helped onto the housing ladder without housing stock being diminished, a policy nakedly targeting red wall and marginal votes Labour will struggle to top.
Not only does it look unlikely Tory MPs can oust Boris now, but maybe Labour and Libdems will also struggle to remove his majority too, with Boris going so effectively for voters, evoking the high tide of Thatcherism?
That's all very well. But I suspect it's bollocks as always.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
No point arguing. I’ve got the important details on copy of the times here.
Firstly I expect a header saying a week is a long time in politics. What an amazing turn around? Week started with potential PMcide, it ends with all the media given up on applying pressure in him and partygate forgotten, leaving Boris appearing strong and in buoyant spirits. Maybe 1922 should have insisted it had to be Wednesday, Monday evening didn’t allow any momentum to build with resignations etc?
At this end of the week Boris is unveiling eye catching policys for key voters everywhere, everyone’s bills slashed, tax cuts, and people on benefits helped onto the housing ladder without housing stock being diminished, a policy nakedly targeting red wall and marginal votes Labour will struggle to top.
Not only does it look unlikely Tory MPs can oust Boris now, but maybe Labour and Libdems will also struggle to remove his majority too, with Boris going so effectively for voters, evoking the high tide of Thatcherism?
Build social housing: it pays for itself, people get better housing, the housing benefit bill falls, and you increase the affordability of property for everyone.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
Indeed. Though its worth noting that it says HA sales must be replaced one for one, so if sales are stock-neutral then the policy would be a positive since we'd have more home owners, but same number of HA properties, which ultimately means fewer private tenants. Win/win, even if the sale is by the HA initially, they'll be able to offer the replacement home to someone else instead.
The problem is as well as Johnson, even if Gove has come up with good ideas here, will it actually ever get through the Commons and the Lords and see the light of day? As I said, too many Tories have a reflexive hatred of the word benefits so would rather cut off their own nose to spite their face, the Treasury is normally far too short sighted, and Labour don't care enough about getting people into a home of their own. So even if this is what I hope is proposed, will it ever actually happen?
It should, but I won't hold my breath.
It's a long way from here to Johnny's Mother's as they used to mysteriously assert on the Douglas side at Central Park at halftime...
Woke led to the rapes of maybe 100,000 white British girls by Muslim grooming gangs
100,000. Possibly a lot more
Why? Because the intersectional suffering of British Muslims (brown, marginalised, immigrant, poor) was deemed more important, and worthy of protection than “slutty white British girls from difficult backgrounds” who did not count in the hierarchy, and who had no one to protect them, Whereas these rapists had an entire industry of lawyers and diversity officers and the rest pushing their cause, and thereby cowing councillors and police into silence
That’s what Woke does. If your intersectional oppression is deemed more important, tens of thousands of kids get raped
When your life of lonely introversion that must be a requirement of the solitary traveller/travel journo gets tiresome, you might want to apply for a job with The Express, though you might want to tone done a little of the divisive hyperbole - they might consider it a little much even for their readership.
Yep blaming that all on 'woke' is the latest sad rambling from him.
I suggest you and others read the Jay report on child abuse in Rotherham, to be found here, before completely dismissing what Leon says. He exaggerates for effect undoubtedly.
But in dismissing him you seem, shamefully, to dismiss the very sad reality of the abuse of very many children and young girls over a prolonged period because of the neglect and incompetence and refusal to take seriously the abuse by those authorities charged with their care. One of the factors in that was their refusal to engage sensibly with the Pakistani community and this allowed the abuse to continue and, also, allowed the abuse of Pakistani women and girls to happen and to go unaddressed, which is something often forgotten, including by Leon.
The issue is not so much the ethnic issue which animates Leon, though that matters but that girls - no matter what their ethnicity - were (and continue to be) abused by men, of all ethnicities, ages and classes.
Yes, I do. You might be thinking it's justified but they don't have the leverage.
Pay settlement will be constrained this year and the 4.2% offer by Scotland seems fair
Fair to those for whom a 4.2% rise is a real-terms pay cut? House prices going through the roof, petrol is on fire. Even food prices are piling on the pounds. A 4.2% nominal rise in these conditions means those workers are poorer.
Whilst I see your point, that is what is facing everyone. And you can be certain very few private companies will be able to afford to give people even a 4.2% pay rise this year.
They dont have a viable business then
That applies to almost ever company in the country then. Unless of course you are wrong and putting your ideology ahead of your common sense.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
No point arguing. I’ve got the important details on copy of the times here.
Firstly I expect a header saying a week is a long time in politics. What an amazing turn around? Week started with potential PMcide, it ends with all the media given up on applying pressure in him and partygate forgotten, leaving Boris appearing strong and in buoyant spirits. Maybe 1922 should have insisted it had to be Wednesday, Monday evening didn’t allow any momentum to build with resignations etc?
At this end of the week Boris is unveiling eye catching policys for key voters everywhere, everyone’s bills slashed, tax cuts, and people on benefits helped onto the housing ladder without housing stock being diminished, a policy nakedly targeting red wall and marginal votes Labour will struggle to top.
Not only does it look unlikely Tory MPs can oust Boris now, but maybe Labour and Libdems will also struggle to remove his majority too, with Boris going so effectively for voters, evoking the high tide of Thatcherism?
Build social housing: it pays for itself, people get better housing, the housing benefit bill falls, and you increase the affordability of property for everyone.
A lot of people on benefits can afford a house, even at risen prices, because they can afford the rent and that costs the same.
Plus if a tenant becomes a home owner, then the landlord might have to sell if he can't find a reliable new tenant, so that ends up being relatively neutral for prices (an additional buyer, but an additional seller) but the market has rebalanced away from landlords and towards homeowners.
Plus there's an extremely rare example here of a positive version of the principle of moral hazard. If tenants with a good credit record, who reliably pay their bills on time including rent but they need and have benefits so can't get a mortgage suddenly now find they can get a mortgage and get on the property ladder then that is good for them, but terrible news for landlords.
Suddenly landlords find themselves bereft of their best and most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time, and having to fish even more from the pool of tenants without good credit who are more likely to default. Moral hazard in action. Oh well, how sad.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
No point arguing. I’ve got the important details on copy of the times here.
Firstly I expect a header saying a week is a long time in politics. What an amazing turn around? Week started with potential PMcide, it ends with all the media given up on applying pressure in him and partygate forgotten, leaving Boris appearing strong and in buoyant spirits. Maybe 1922 should have insisted it had to be Wednesday, Monday evening didn’t allow any momentum to build with resignations etc?
At this end of the week Boris is unveiling eye catching policys for key voters everywhere, everyone’s bills slashed, tax cuts, and people on benefits helped onto the housing ladder without housing stock being diminished, a policy nakedly targeting red wall and marginal votes Labour will struggle to top.
Not only does it look unlikely Tory MPs can oust Boris now, but maybe Labour and Libdems will also struggle to remove his majority too, with Boris going so effectively for voters, evoking the high tide of Thatcherism?
That's all very well. But I suspect it's bollocks as always.
It only costs £3B to get hundreds of thousands of people on housing ladder buying the home they are living in rather than renting - and another new home for someone’s else replaces it for each one in the scheme. Voters are going to love it! And it’s certainly not socialism, Lady Thatcher will be smiling down on Boris tonight.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
Indeed. Though its worth noting that it says HA sales must be replaced one for one, so if sales are stock-neutral then the policy would be a positive since we'd have more home owners, but same number of HA properties, which ultimately means fewer private tenants. Win/win, even if the sale is by the HA initially, they'll be able to offer the replacement home to someone else instead.
The problem is as well as Johnson, even if Gove has come up with good ideas here, will it actually ever get through the Commons and the Lords and see the light of day? As I said, too many Tories have a reflexive hatred of the word benefits so would rather cut off their own nose to spite their face, the Treasury is normally far too short sighted, and Labour don't care enough about getting people into a home of their own. So even if this is what I hope is proposed, will it ever actually happen?
It should, but I won't hold my breath.
Housing associations are private organisations. It would be rather un-conservative for the state to compel private organisations to massively change how they operate. So, will this be an opt-in scheme for HAs?
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
Indeed. Though its worth noting that it says HA sales must be replaced one for one, so if sales are stock-neutral then the policy would be a positive since we'd have more home owners, but same number of HA properties, which ultimately means fewer private tenants. Win/win, even if the sale is by the HA initially, they'll be able to offer the replacement home to someone else instead.
The problem is as well as Johnson, even if Gove has come up with good ideas here, will it actually ever get through the Commons and the Lords and see the light of day? As I said, too many Tories have a reflexive hatred of the word benefits so would rather cut off their own nose to spite their face, the Treasury is normally far too short sighted, and Labour don't care enough about getting people into a home of their own. So even if this is what I hope is proposed, will it ever actually happen?
It should, but I won't hold my breath.
Housing associations are private organisations. It would be rather un-conservative for the state to compel private organisations to massively change how they operate. So, will this be an opt-in scheme for HAs?
The article says "agreement has been reached" so I'm guessing so? Though I imagine as always there'll be an element of carrot and stick behind the agreement.
I see that Boris’s big idea is to bring back sub-prime loans.
It's completely mad, just as Klarna begins to wobble the government is suggesting Wonga makes a phoenix like comeback.
'Klarna' ?
Swedish “buy-now-pay-later” service.
Has expanded too aggressively and is now facing questions over its overall valuation and perhaps viability.
Materially insolvent within months, investors have sunk billions in and will have to weigh up whether it's worth sinking in another few billion or just cut their losses.
I fear for a lot of Northern European economies that are being propped up by ultra loose credit conditions that are suddenly snapping back.
My biggest worry is that we're something like 10 months into the gas price crisis (remember the gas subsidies given out last year to keep fertilizer plants running for CO2 and farming) and the government hasn't made any moves to rapidly increase generation capacity from alternative sources in that time. There's just no urgency to get anything done, just wishful thinking that this will all just go away in a few months but that few months just keeps getting further away.
Max, you forgot the “dash for nuclear” which was savagely torn apart in Jesse Norman’s letter.
Yes, a dash for nuclear which will produce its first kW of electricity in 15 years. Very useful. I'm not against the idea of nuclear but it does nothing to increase electricity supply by 50% within a year which is what the government needed to start planning when gas prices spiked. Everything we do with gas can be done with electricity, we just need a lot more of it.
There just seems to be no one at cabinet level having that discussion, how do we rapidly increase electricity supply by 50% within 12 months, how do we do it without increasing our carbon footprint and what do we need to get started tomorrow. Just pie in the sky rubbish about 7 nuclear plants using the EPR design that has still yet to reliably produce any electricity at scale.
And if those are the criteria, it's blooming obvious. Lots of onshore wind. No, it doesn't work all the time, but gas is switch on-and-off-able enough that it doesn't matter much. The aim is just to burn less gas over a season.
But again, we can't do that because the country isn't running itself for productivity, it's running itself to be genteel. Can't upset the Nimbies. Even if that leads to decline.
Even offshore wind can be done within that timeframe. We'd be installing a huge amount of generation capacity every month right now if we'd begun the process 10 months ago, the first major turbine parts would be rolling off the line in the north of England, the interconnects would be complete and we'd be building the giant turbines out in the North Sea that can withstand 90-100mph wind speeds. £3-4bn spent a year ago would have cut the cost of that £20bn subsidy by 75% today because that generation capacity would already be coming online lowering electricity prices.
Current plans are to quadruple offshore wind by 2030.
We should have commissioned replacement nuclear reactors 15 years ago to replace those coming offline, but Blair, Brown and then Cameron all passed the buck.
So now we have a problem.
You could get tidal lagoon power stations up and producing power in about 6, with a Govt. that was assisting the planning process. Zero carbon (after you have offset the steel in construction), zero waste, as near as damn it zero abandonment costs, minimal state subsidies to construction.
Boris could have been 3 years from first power. And he was supportive of these tidal lagoon power stations on his stump swing through Wales. Why he is so in thrall to nuclear is a mystery. He does know, doesn't he, that no nuclear power station has been built anywhere on the planet without massive aid from the Government?
However, the scheme is likely to be limited to a series of pilots as the costs will be met from within existing government spending, without additional funding.
Internal estimates suggest that if it was uncapped the programme could cost the government £3 billion a year with hundreds of thousands of people taking advantage. One government source said that the scheme would be capped at about £500 million, although the cost has yet to be agreed.
I texted the story to my friend who works at JCP and deals with UC every day has pointed out a few major flaws.
1) The 16k UC limit on savings makes the deposit situation complicated
and
2) Given the way the people on UC are regularly sanctioned for minor breaches (and often for no breaches at all when reviewed) then letting people on UC apply for mortgages is setting up a new sub prime disaster.
You will not be surprised I do not agree with you
It has the opportunity of changing people's lives from renters to owners and releasing money to build more homes
Of course safeguards will be needed but I suspect if anyone bit Boris had announced it or eve the lib dems then it would be well received
No, it's trapping people on benefits over very long periods of time, hence the very high cost of the policy because eventually hundreds of thousands will essentially be getting a mortgage subsidy from the state. It's completely mad.
How can something be mad if it wins shed loads of votes and wins you elections? 🤷♀️
Woke led to the rapes of maybe 100,000 white British girls by Muslim grooming gangs
100,000. Possibly a lot more
Why? Because the intersectional suffering of British Muslims (brown, marginalised, immigrant, poor) was deemed more important, and worthy of protection than “slutty white British girls from difficult backgrounds” who did not count in the hierarchy, and who had no one to protect them, Whereas these rapists had an entire industry of lawyers and diversity officers and the rest pushing their cause, and thereby cowing councillors and police into silence
That’s what Woke does. If your intersectional oppression is deemed more important, tens of thousands of kids get raped
When your life of lonely introversion that must be a requirement of the solitary traveller/travel journo gets tiresome, you might want to apply for a job with The Express, though you might want to tone done a little of the divisive hyperbole - they might consider it a little much even for their readership.
Yep blaming that all on 'woke' is the latest sad rambling from him.
I suggest you and others read the Jay report on child abuse in Rotherham, to be found here, before completely dismissing what Leon says. He exaggerates for effect undoubtedly.
But in dismissing him you seem, shamefully, to dismiss the very sad reality of the abuse of very many children and young girls over a prolonged period because of the neglect and incompetence and refusal to take seriously the abuse by those authorities charged with their care. One of the factors in that was their refusal to engage sensibly with the Pakistani community and this allowed the abuse to continue and, also, allowed the abuse of Pakistani women and girls to happen and to go unaddressed, which is something often forgotten, including by Leon.
The issue is not so much the ethnic issue which animates Leon, though that matters but that girls - no matter what their ethnicity - were (and continue to be) abused by men, of all ethnicities, ages and classes.
There were serious issues raised in the Jay report, but Leon is massively exaggerating and trying to ignite the fires of Islamophobia. He's basically regurgitating talking points from far right conspiracy theories. So, yes, he should be dismissed.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
No point arguing. I’ve got the important details on copy of the times here.
Firstly I expect a header saying a week is a long time in politics. What an amazing turn around? Week started with potential PMcide, it ends with all the media given up on applying pressure in him and partygate forgotten, leaving Boris appearing strong and in buoyant spirits. Maybe 1922 should have insisted it had to be Wednesday, Monday evening didn’t allow any momentum to build with resignations etc?
At this end of the week Boris is unveiling eye catching policys for key voters everywhere, everyone’s bills slashed, tax cuts, and people on benefits helped onto the housing ladder without housing stock being diminished, a policy nakedly targeting red wall and marginal votes Labour will struggle to top.
Not only does it look unlikely Tory MPs can oust Boris now, but maybe Labour and Libdems will also struggle to remove his majority too, with Boris going so effectively for voters, evoking the high tide of Thatcherism?
That's all very well. But I suspect it's bollocks as always.
It only costs £3B to get hundreds of thousands of people on housing ladder buying the home they are living in rather than renting - and another new home for someone’s else replaces it for each one in the scheme. Voters are going to love it! And it’s certainly not socialism, Lady Thatcher will be smiling down on Boris tonight.
Jeez! It's so simple. Why didn't anyone think of it before? That Boris. Genius he is.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
Indeed. Though its worth noting that it says HA sales must be replaced one for one, so if sales are stock-neutral then the policy would be a positive since we'd have more home owners, but same number of HA properties, which ultimately means fewer private tenants. Win/win, even if the sale is by the HA initially, they'll be able to offer the replacement home to someone else instead.
The problem is as well as Johnson, even if Gove has come up with good ideas here, will it actually ever get through the Commons and the Lords and see the light of day? As I said, too many Tories have a reflexive hatred of the word benefits so would rather cut off their own nose to spite their face, the Treasury is normally far too short sighted, and Labour don't care enough about getting people into a home of their own. So even if this is what I hope is proposed, will it ever actually happen?
It should, but I won't hold my breath.
Housing associations are private organisations. It would be rather un-conservative for the state to compel private organisations to massively change how they operate. So, will this be an opt-in scheme for HAs?
The article says "agreement has been reached" so I'm guessing so? Though I imagine as always there'll be an element of carrot and stick behind the agreement.
Agreement has been reached *for the pilot schemes*, as I understand it.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
Indeed. Though its worth noting that it says HA sales must be replaced one for one, so if sales are stock-neutral then the policy would be a positive since we'd have more home owners, but same number of HA properties, which ultimately means fewer private tenants. Win/win, even if the sale is by the HA initially, they'll be able to offer the replacement home to someone else instead.
The problem is as well as Johnson, even if Gove has come up with good ideas here, will it actually ever get through the Commons and the Lords and see the light of day? As I said, too many Tories have a reflexive hatred of the word benefits so would rather cut off their own nose to spite their face, the Treasury is normally far too short sighted, and Labour don't care enough about getting people into a home of their own. So even if this is what I hope is proposed, will it ever actually happen?
It should, but I won't hold my breath.
Housing associations are private organisations. It would be rather un-conservative for the state to compel private organisations to massively change how they operate. So, will this be an opt-in scheme for HAs?
The article says "agreement has been reached" so I'm guessing so? Though I imagine as always there'll be an element of carrot and stick behind the agreement.
Agreement has been reached *for the pilot schemes*, as I understand it.
And we're still on pilot schemes for migrating onto UC.
One of the better policy papers I've seen on helping people get on the property market is allowing rental payments to become part of your credit file.
If you've shown for the past 4 years that you've paid your rent of £750 pcm on time without fail then that should help you get approved from the £600 pcm mortgage you've applied for.
This would be difficult in practice , you’d be relying on landlords to do this and any mistakes could be detrimental to the renter .
I’d not be confident if I was a renter of giving my landlord that much responsibility or power over my credit file .
I’d not be confident if I was a renter of giving my landlord that much responsibility or power over my credit file .
Well do it through the banks then. There is no reason why this could not be done. The only reason it is not made a priority is because landlords are piling up rentier profits from tenants who have no alternative. The system is rigged in favour of property owners and against those who rent. No wonder society is falling apart.
This site is incredibly small-c conservative. Waitrose man, if you like.
There are almost no true lefties, and the only Green on here is essentially a high-octane, performative satire.
It’s also old, male and “hideously” white.
It's got more male lately - someone commented a couple of months back about the rarity of female posters. The slanging match a couple of days ago by well-established posters on who could f*** longest was seriously locker-room stuff that you wouldn't need to be a very sensitive woman to feel a "not a place for me" reaction. it'd be good if the moderators reined it in a bit. Who wants to know about everyone's sex life on a poloitics site?
Not getting any then Nick? Just a game of Dippy not strip poker filling the void between leaflet drops these days?
Woke led to the rapes of maybe 100,000 white British girls by Muslim grooming gangs
100,000. Possibly a lot more
Why? Because the intersectional suffering of British Muslims (brown, marginalised, immigrant, poor) was deemed more important, and worthy of protection than “slutty white British girls from difficult backgrounds” who did not count in the hierarchy, and who had no one to protect them, Whereas these rapists had an entire industry of lawyers and diversity officers and the rest pushing their cause, and thereby cowing councillors and police into silence
That’s what Woke does. If your intersectional oppression is deemed more important, tens of thousands of kids get raped
When your life of lonely introversion that must be a requirement of the solitary traveller/travel journo gets tiresome, you might want to apply for a job with The Express, though you might want to tone done a little of the divisive hyperbole - they might consider it a little much even for their readership.
Yep blaming that all on 'woke' is the latest sad rambling from him.
I suggest you and others read the Jay report on child abuse in Rotherham, to be found here, before completely dismissing what Leon says. He exaggerates for effect undoubtedly.
But in dismissing him you seem, shamefully, to dismiss the very sad reality of the abuse of very many children and young girls over a prolonged period because of the neglect and incompetence and refusal to take seriously the abuse by those authorities charged with their care. One of the factors in that was their refusal to engage sensibly with the Pakistani community and this allowed the abuse to continue and, also, allowed the abuse of Pakistani women and girls to happen and to go unaddressed, which is something often forgotten, including by Leon.
The issue is not so much the ethnic issue which animates Leon, though that matters but that girls - no matter what their ethnicity - were (and continue to be) abused by men, of all ethnicities, ages and classes.
There were serious issues raised in the Jay report, but Leon is massively exaggerating and trying to ignite the fires of Islamophobia. He's basically regurgitating talking points from far right conspiracy theories. So, yes, he should be dismissed.
Those serious issues in the Jay report and many others still have not been addressed.
It is not the likes of Leon you should be bothered about but the continued appalling failures by the state over many many years to take real action to protect the most vulnerable group of all - children. It is those failures which fuel conspiracy theories, sadly.
Safeguarding ought to be the highest priority. It isn't and it is children, particularly girls, who suffer.
It is an utter disgrace. I have written about it regularly, both above and below the line. It saddens me to see the subject used as a peg by posters to advance their hobby horses or to take pot shots at each other rather than engage with the issues. But this seems to happen all too often these days.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
No point arguing. I’ve got the important details on copy of the times here.
Firstly I expect a header saying a week is a long time in politics. What an amazing turn around? Week started with potential PMcide, it ends with all the media given up on applying pressure in him and partygate forgotten, leaving Boris appearing strong and in buoyant spirits. Maybe 1922 should have insisted it had to be Wednesday, Monday evening didn’t allow any momentum to build with resignations etc?
At this end of the week Boris is unveiling eye catching policys for key voters everywhere, everyone’s bills slashed, tax cuts, and people on benefits helped onto the housing ladder without housing stock being diminished, a policy nakedly targeting red wall and marginal votes Labour will struggle to top.
Not only does it look unlikely Tory MPs can oust Boris now, but maybe Labour and Libdems will also struggle to remove his majority too, with Boris going so effectively for voters, evoking the high tide of Thatcherism?
That's all very well. But I suspect it's bollocks as always.
It only costs £3B to get hundreds of thousands of people on housing ladder buying the home they are living in rather than renting - and another new home for someone’s else replaces it for each one in the scheme. Voters are going to love it! And it’s certainly not socialism, Lady Thatcher will be smiling down on Boris tonight.
Jeez! It's so simple. Why didn't anyone think of it before? That Boris. Genius he is.
Glad you understand stand now. Popular Capitalism wins elections.
Johnson can not force banks to lend to those on benefits and their decisions aren’t just based on income so this policy is one of him trying to dupe the plebs into thinking he’s a man of the people !
The policy is designed to grab some headlines and then won’t go anywhere as the over riding problem in the UK is a lack of supply . That won’t change because of Nimbyism and the Tories desperate to avoid annoying those who are more likely to vote for them .
The article doesn't say anything about forcing banks, it says allowing banks, there's a big difference.
Currently the state forbids housing benefit from being used for mortgages, it must be used for rent.
All it takes is for the state to deregulate housing benefit so it can be used for mortgages or rent and suddenly people with good credit can now afford a mortgage. Good for the renter who can become a home owner, good for taxpayers who no longer have to uprate housing benefit annually for that person for the rest of their time.
The only people who lose out are landlords who find their most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time and have a good credit history can now own a home instead of pay rent. Sucks for them. Oh well, how sad.
I get the sentiment. But no one is forcing the private landlord to sell. It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
That's a separate proposal to allowing people to buy a home. Unless I've misread the article, the proposal to allow people on benefits to get a home of their own is one proposal, the proposal to extend right to buy to housing associations is a different proposal. Unlike you, I am OK with the latter, I don't think we should be encouraging any kind of landlords.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
A little word twisting there. I didn't say that at all. I'd rather a HA landlord than a private one be milking HB. But you knew that. The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson. Time will tell.
Indeed. Though its worth noting that it says HA sales must be replaced one for one, so if sales are stock-neutral then the policy would be a positive since we'd have more home owners, but same number of HA properties, which ultimately means fewer private tenants. Win/win, even if the sale is by the HA initially, they'll be able to offer the replacement home to someone else instead.
The problem is as well as Johnson, even if Gove has come up with good ideas here, will it actually ever get through the Commons and the Lords and see the light of day? As I said, too many Tories have a reflexive hatred of the word benefits so would rather cut off their own nose to spite their face, the Treasury is normally far too short sighted, and Labour don't care enough about getting people into a home of their own. So even if this is what I hope is proposed, will it ever actually happen?
It should, but I won't hold my breath.
So if Housing Association X is required to sell houses to tenants in an extensiuon to RTB, presumably it's at some sort of discount - for councils, the discount is 60%. Councils struggle to replace the RTB houses because they only get 40% of the value. If this is the same for HAs, who will pay for the replacement house? If it's the HA, they will go bust in no time, So it must be the Government, who have set aside £500m for this.
Say a house is worth £100K, and sold at £40K. Then the Govement gives the HA £60K. Do 9,000 of those and the money's gone.
Woke led to the rapes of maybe 100,000 white British girls by Muslim grooming gangs
100,000. Possibly a lot more
Why? Because the intersectional suffering of British Muslims (brown, marginalised, immigrant, poor) was deemed more important, and worthy of protection than “slutty white British girls from difficult backgrounds” who did not count in the hierarchy, and who had no one to protect them, Whereas these rapists had an entire industry of lawyers and diversity officers and the rest pushing their cause, and thereby cowing councillors and police into silence
That’s what Woke does. If your intersectional oppression is deemed more important, tens of thousands of kids get raped
When your life of lonely introversion that must be a requirement of the solitary traveller/travel journo gets tiresome, you might want to apply for a job with The Express, though you might want to tone done a little of the divisive hyperbole - they might consider it a little much even for their readership.
Yep blaming that all on 'woke' is the latest sad rambling from him.
I suggest you and others read the Jay report on child abuse in Rotherham, to be found here, before completely dismissing what Leon says. He exaggerates for effect undoubtedly.
But in dismissing him you seem, shamefully, to dismiss the very sad reality of the abuse of very many children and young girls over a prolonged period because of the neglect and incompetence and refusal to take seriously the abuse by those authorities charged with their care. One of the factors in that was their refusal to engage sensibly with the Pakistani community and this allowed the abuse to continue and, also, allowed the abuse of Pakistani women and girls to happen and to go unaddressed, which is something often forgotten, including by Leon.
The issue is not so much the ethnic issue which animates Leon, though that matters but that girls - no matter what their ethnicity - were (and continue to be) abused by men, of all ethnicities, ages and classes.
There were serious issues raised in the Jay report, but Leon is massively exaggerating and trying to ignite the fires of Islamophobia. He's basically regurgitating talking points from far right conspiracy theories. So, yes, he should be dismissed.
Those serious issues in the Jay report and many others still have not been addressed.
It is not the likes of Leon you should be bothered about but the continued appalling failures by the state over many many years to take real action to protect the most vulnerable group of all - children. It is those failures which fuel conspiracy theories, sadly.
Safeguarding ought to be the highest priority. It isn't and it is children, particularly girls, who suffer.
It is an utter disgrace. I have written about it regularly, both above and below the line. It saddens me to see the subject used as a peg by posters to advance their hobby horses or to take pot shots at each other rather than engage with the issues. But this seems to happen all too often these days.
So I will bid you all a good night.
I am concerned about both safeguarding and about conspiracy theories. I suggest the best approach is to keep discussion of the two separate.
I’d not be confident if I was a renter of giving my landlord that much responsibility or power over my credit file .
Well do it through the banks then. There is no reason why this could not be done. The only reason it is not made a priority is because landlords are piling up rentier profits from tenants who have no alternative. The system is rigged in favour of property owners and against those who rent. No wonder society is falling apart.
It’s not that simple . You’d be relying on a lot of buy in from landlords and it would be a very complicated system to set up .
It might be a good thing re credit , that’s not the issue but the practicalities and room for mistakes and bad practice are high .
From what I have seen, retiring in your 50s is often a big mistake. I've seen a couple of people go downhill fast in their 60s after retiring in their 50s. A couple of people I know started new careers in the public sector in their 50s, which they have both been successful in and are highly respected. The impression I get is that working full time is good in your 50s and early 60s. Probably best to wind down significantly though in your late 60s. Thats what I plan to do, even though I may not need to from a financial point of view, particularly if this house price inflation keeps going strong.
I took 4 months off work last year and it was a really good experience. I hadn't taken a serious amount of time off work for 15 years. I took a few holidays etc. But the experience made me realise that if I stop work, life becomes meaningless. The best thing to do is to find work that is meaningful and that you enjoy.
Agree 100%.
It's very individual, but of course the last sentence is right. If you manage that, then why stop? I have a day job which I enjoy, the council ditto, and a translation business which I'm neutral about - between them they take maybe 75% of waking hours. I need the first two to live comfortably, and give away the proceeds of the third. Don't really see why I'd want to stop until they stop being enjoyable (or I get voted out, of course).
Well do it through the banks then. There is no reason why this could not be done. The only reason it is not made a priority is because landlords are piling up rentier profits from tenants who have no alternative. The system is rigged in favour of property owners and against those who rent. No wonder society is falling apart.
It’s not that simple . You’d be relying on a lot of buy in from landlords and it would be a very complicated system to set up .
It might be a good thing re credit , that’s not the issue but the practicalities and room for mistakes and bad practice are high .
I'm sorry, I don't buy this argument at all. Why not start with those landlords that do want to buy in? How can it be complicated to record monthly direct debit payments of an agreed amount? This just sounds like obfuscation.
I'm sorry, I don't buy this argument at all. Why not start with those landlords that do want to buy in? How can it be complicated to record monthly direct debit payments of an agreed amount? This just sounds like obfuscation.
Actually, why not just say that any tenant that can produce 8 years bank statements of rent paid on time should be entitled to a mortgage at a repayment of up to 90% of that monthly amount, with government guarantee to bail out the lender if they default in the first five years? Why do we have to jump through lots of hoops of landlord buy-in and financial complexity? If any government truly believed in universal home ownership, they would help private tenants get on the housing ladder instead of only dreaming up schemes to undermine social housing.
Well John. Take a deep breath, call on all years experience as you ask yourself: Is Labours new tactic of not focusing on Boris but on the Conservatives record in office really the wrong one, from here on in to the election?
Full of themselves some of the “big shot” journalists aren’t they considering they are so slow at understanding politics 🙂
Or maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh, maybe we get this piffle from them because they are in a market place and need to pay for a new car and a holiday etc
Well John. Take a deep breath, call on all years experience as you ask yourself: Is Labours new tactic of not focusing on Boris but on the Conservatives record in office really the wrong one, from here on in to the election?
Full of themselves some of the “big shot” journalists aren’t they considering they are so slow at understanding politics 🙂
Or maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh, maybe we get this piffle from them because they are in a market place and need to pay for a new car and a holiday etc
I think you're right on this. Also, if the Tories are busy damaging Boris then the last thing Starmer wants is to wade in, otherwise they will rally around the flag.
That said, Starmer didn't give a fantastic performance yesterday. I still think PMQs was a win for Starmer, but more like a scrappy 1-0 rather than 8-1. Under the circumstances, Boris will be okay with that.
Well John. Take a deep breath, call on all years experience as you ask yourself: Is Labours new tactic of not focusing on Boris but on the Conservatives record in office really the wrong one, from here on in to the election?
Full of themselves some of the “big shot” journalists aren’t they considering they are so slow at understanding politics 🙂
Or maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh, maybe we get this piffle from them because they are in a market place and need to pay for a new car and a holiday etc
I think you're right on this. Also, if the Tories are busy damaging Boris then the last thing Starmer wants is to wade in, otherwise they will rally around the flag.
That said, Starmer didn't give a fantastic performance yesterday. I still think PMQs was a win for Starmer, but more like a scrappy 1-0 rather than 8-1. Under the circumstances, Boris will be okay with that.
Only listened in the car, but thought Starmer was underwhelming after being given such a wonderful opening with the VONC and 3/4 of backbenchers voting for Boris to go. Crossed my mind that he was thinking "I'm going to get a ticket from Durham police and will have to walk the plank, whilst the POS PM is going to carry on at PMQs for another year...."?
Comments
Seriously, politics is a good medium to bet in, but the margins are much tighter than when I started doing so seriously about fifteen years ago.
Ah well, you'll just have to carry on working for a living a bit longer.
I am not sure what benefits one can get without a bank account these days.
Your response is far more considered than mine and is correct, I am just fed up with rail unions demanding the impossible given what the general population is facing
😡
Been on the River Ouse tonight and mine own tongue spleets what it speaks.
Sleep well everyone.
That say your two happiest days are the day you buy the farm, and the day you sell it (probably in reverse order).
It is possible (and easy) to end up in unauthorised overdraft.
Banks have got better in automatically offering/giving people basic bank accounts if they fail the credit check for a normal bank account.
Most basic bank accounts come with no cheque books and debit cards that always check if there are sufficient funds available for the transaction.
I've mentioned my friend who works at a JCP, she says a lot of people just don't understand budgeting or banking.
You and I both know that if we have a regular direct debit that comes out on the 10th of each month and if the 10th falls on a weekend it comes out on a Monday.
A lot of these people don't, and they spend that money.
It's forcing HA's to sell. And they generally are the kind of landlords we should be encouraging.
Rebuilding Ukraine will be an economic stimulus on a global level.
Wordle 354 X/6*
🟩⬜🟩🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜
If you've shown for the past 4 years that you've paid your rent of £750 pcm on time without fail then that should help you get approved from the £600 pcm mortgage you've applied for.
This seems like excuse making for not wanting the lower orders to have access to a service.
Plus you'd get people complaining, they said they'd take it out on the 10th of every month and they took it out on the 9th.
As Max notes, we should move to seven day banking.
Multiple reforms on the same area. This has to be Gove, he's the only one sensible enough, and the only one brave enough in the Tories to face the shibboleth that benefits aren't all evil and that people on benefits getting mortgages is more sensible than paying landlords.
I sit down every Sunday and look at my accounts. And usually shuffle money cos the rent and DD's go out Monday.
It is done instantly. No problems whatsoever. No reason it should go out like that.
That's an excuse.
But you knew that.
The devil is all in the details here my friend. It may be wonderful. Or it may be Boris Johnson.
Time will tell.
Firstly I expect a header saying a week is a long time in politics. What an amazing turn around? Week started with potential PMcide, it ends with all the media given up on applying pressure in him and partygate forgotten, leaving Boris appearing strong and in buoyant spirits. Maybe 1922 should have insisted it had to be Wednesday, Monday evening didn’t allow any momentum to build with resignations etc?
At this end of the week Boris is unveiling eye catching policys for key voters everywhere, everyone’s bills slashed, tax cuts, and people on benefits helped onto the housing ladder without housing stock being diminished, a policy nakedly targeting red wall and marginal votes Labour will struggle to top.
Not only does it look unlikely Tory MPs can oust Boris now, but maybe Labour and Libdems will also struggle to remove his majority too, with Boris going so effectively for voters, evoking the high tide of Thatcherism?
The problem is as well as Johnson, even if Gove has come up with good ideas here, will it actually ever get through the Commons and the Lords and see the light of day? As I said, too many Tories have a reflexive hatred of the word benefits so would rather cut off their own nose to spite their face, the Treasury is normally far too short sighted, and Labour don't care enough about getting people into a home of their own. So even if this is what I hope is proposed, will it ever actually happen?
It should, but I won't hold my breath.
If you make mortgages easier to get, then prices rise, e.g. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-10390259/Help-Buy-homes-time-buyers-expensive-says-House-Lords-report.html
Build social housing: it pays for itself, people get better housing, the housing benefit bill falls, and you increase the affordability of property for everyone.
But in dismissing him you seem, shamefully, to dismiss the very sad reality of the abuse of very many children and young girls over a prolonged period because of the neglect and incompetence and refusal to take seriously the abuse by those authorities charged with their care. One of the factors in that was their refusal to engage sensibly with the Pakistani community and this allowed the abuse to continue and, also, allowed the abuse of Pakistani women and girls to happen and to go unaddressed, which is something often forgotten, including by Leon.
The report is here - https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham
The issue is not so much the ethnic issue which animates Leon, though that matters but that girls - no matter what their ethnicity - were (and continue to be) abused by men, of all ethnicities, ages and classes.
IICSA reports can be found here - https://www.iicsa.org.uk/.
Plus if a tenant becomes a home owner, then the landlord might have to sell if he can't find a reliable new tenant, so that ends up being relatively neutral for prices (an additional buyer, but an additional seller) but the market has rebalanced away from landlords and towards homeowners.
Plus there's an extremely rare example here of a positive version of the principle of moral hazard. If tenants with a good credit record, who reliably pay their bills on time including rent but they need and have benefits so can't get a mortgage suddenly now find they can get a mortgage and get on the property ladder then that is good for them, but terrible news for landlords.
Suddenly landlords find themselves bereft of their best and most reliable customers who always paid their rent on time, and having to fish even more from the pool of tenants without good credit who are more likely to default. Moral hazard in action. Oh well, how sad.
Union 27.8%
Green 21.7%
SPD 20.4%
AfD 9.3%
FDP 8.3%
Left 3.9%
Others 8.6%
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahl_zum_21._Deutschen_Bundestag/Umfragen_und_Prognosen#Dynamische_Sonntagsfrage
Boris could have been 3 years from first power. And he was supportive of these tidal lagoon power stations on his stump swing through Wales. Why he is so in thrall to nuclear is a mystery. He does know, doesn't he, that no nuclear power station has been built anywhere on the planet without massive aid from the Government?
That Boris. Genius he is.
I’d not be confident if I was a renter of giving my landlord that much responsibility or power over my credit file .
Aww bless 🤭
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/women-think-about-sex-more-than-men-do-according-to-new-survey-20141119-11pffg.html
It is not the likes of Leon you should be bothered about but the continued appalling failures by the state over many many years to take real action to protect the most vulnerable group of all - children. It is those failures which fuel conspiracy theories, sadly.
Safeguarding ought to be the highest priority. It isn't and it is children, particularly girls, who suffer.
It is an utter disgrace. I have written about it regularly, both above and below the line. It saddens me to see the subject used as a peg by posters to advance their hobby horses or to take pot shots at each other rather than engage with the issues. But this seems to happen all too often these days.
So I will bid you all a good night.
Say a house is worth £100K, and sold at £40K. Then the Govement gives the HA £60K. Do 9,000 of those and the money's gone.
It might be a good thing re credit , that’s not the issue but the practicalities and room for mistakes and bad practice are high .
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.160663234
There can be no other explanation for the Labour leader’s feeble performance in the Commons today, writes John Rentoul" (£)
https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/voices/keir-starmer-boris-johnson-pmqs-nhs-b2096540.html
Full of themselves some of the “big shot” journalists aren’t they considering they are so slow at understanding politics 🙂
Or maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh, maybe we get this piffle from them because they are in a market place and need to pay for a new car and a holiday etc
That said, Starmer didn't give a fantastic performance yesterday. I still think PMQs was a win for Starmer, but more like a scrappy 1-0 rather than 8-1. Under the circumstances, Boris will be okay with that.