Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since. [snip]
Utter poppycock. I didn't 'falsely claim' anything of the sort. I correctly pointed out that the period of sharp price falls (circa 1989-1991) was a bad time to be first time buyer, and you and @williamglenn then started quoting figures from 1995/6, which was exactly when the market eventually started to recover. Please don't lie about what I said.
You specifically said the "mid 1990s", if I recall correctly?
No I didn't.
Williamglenn said that the mid 90s were a good time to be a first time buyer (subsequently claimed to be the best time to be one), you rejected that and said it was a bad time.
You were wrong. Categorically and completely wrong.
At no stage of the early to mid 90s was it a worse time to be a first time buyer than now. The house price falls in the early 90s allowed property to become affordable for first time buyers. It absolutely should happen again.
You justified your claim by saying Look here's a doc saying there were 950,000 buyers in 1995, biggest year ever. When it was pointed out that was buyers within previous 3 years giving an average of 315,000 pa you said That makes my point even stronger.
Because it did. It meant the 3 years to 1995 were the strongest ever.
Richard responded to the facts showing 1995 to be the peak by claiming that was when it started to recover, but a recovery from 1995 would show in the three years to 1997 if the years before it were atrocious.
If the three years to 1995 are the highest ever, then that means that collectively 1993, 1994 and 1995 were the highest ever. Which means the price falls in 1991 and 1992 far from locking out first time buyers as claimed, opened the doors to them instead.
Your document just gave the number, it was your gloss that it was a uge record because you hadn't read it properly.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since. [snip]
Utter poppycock. I didn't 'falsely claim' anything of the sort. I correctly pointed out that the period of sharp price falls (circa 1989-1991) was a bad time to be first time buyer, and you and @williamglenn then started quoting figures from 1995/6, which was exactly when the market eventually started to recover. Please don't lie about what I said.
You specifically said the "mid 1990s", if I recall correctly?
No I didn't.
OK, I'll take your word for it even though it differs from my recollection. This is where it would be helpful if the Vanilla search was better than useless.
Just go to Richard's profile. It's easy to check what he did and didn't say on the matter (spoiler, he didn't say it).
He sort of did. Direct line of responses to each other:
Nabavi: The trouble is that a big fall in house prices combined with higher interest rates doesn't help younger buyers, quite the opposite. What happens is that the mortgage providers get nervous about affordability and negative equity, and require bigger deposits, whilst at the same time sellers don't put their houses on the market. The whole market seizes up, leaving only a few forced sellers whose properties get bought at low prices by people with cash.
Williamglenn: This is only true if you take an extremely short-term perspective. The mid-90s was a good time to be a first-time buyer.
Nabavi: For those who held on long enough and didn't go bust in the meantime. Prices took nearly a decade to recover from 1989.
Williamglenn: That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Nabavi: Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
The problem is his memory doesn't match the facts. William was right.
LOL! Thanks for showing that I was indeed correct! Although it would have been even clearer if you'd quoted the next few posts.
OK, so you didn't explicitly reject Williamglenn's claim that "the mid 90s was a good time to be a first time buyer", but the comment I've italicised implicitly does - at least, that was my reading of it at the time, which is why it stuck in my mind. But I don't have a dog in this fight, and if that line wasn't intended as a refutation of Williamglenn's preceding post then I accept that.
Because they don't actually want to win it. It leads to two bad things from their partisan point of view - either she gets replaced by someone better, or they get an immediate election that they aren't ready for.
Why would you care you are not ready when you are 36 points ahead or whatever today's figure is?
I understand the argument that Labour might prefer to take charge in 2023/2024 than right now - let the Tories own the mess slightly more first.
However, Starmer would deffo take an election right now, he would bite your hand off for it. It's a total opposite situation to Corbyn in late 2019, who by that point was probably counting on the Government to collapse somehow, or a no deal Brexit to go through and see Labour shoot up in the polls - but could hardly refuse an election himself.
He's full of shite, only Wragg, Brady and Ghani know how many letters have gone in and I doubt they even tell the rest of the 1922 exec much less Labour MPs.
There are enough letters to have precipitated a meeting between Brady and Truss yesterday.
But not enough that Brady was able to get Truss to see common sense. Unless her vacant expression yesterday was being told that she has to remain as PM because there is no fix that allows her to escape even though Brady and most Tory MPs want her gone.
Rip off Energy company news. My tarriff renews Nov 1, EoN will only offer me the variable. Single, 2 bed flat, they state my annual use is ca 2500 kwh leccy and 6600 gas, both below the UK average, gas by some distance. Currently pay £86 per month and am £320 in credit. They want £214 per month. They want me to pay as much as the cap on the average UK use household. I believe they can fuck off
Ofgem rules, they don't want you building up a deficit over the winter.
You were wrong throughout the entire thread, like doubling down on the idea that 1995 was recovery when 1993 and other years of the 90s also had fantastic FTB sale levels, which is why collectively the three years to 1995 were the peak.
If you still want to claim this ridiculous notion that 1990s price falls harmed first time buyers, please name any years in the 1990s where first time buyer levels were consistently lower than recent years? Because its just not true. Nothing your claiming is substantiated in facts, quite the opposite.
Just read the posts I made, you seem to be able to find them, and they are quite clear. Everyone else is bored by your misrepresenting what I said.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
That’s not how it works. The U.K. will be seen as a jurisdiction where people’s data is not safe and the EU will put obstacles in the way of data being sent here. I’m currently offshoring a client’s 45 jobs to the Netherlands because their customers are concerned that the data centres they run here will no longer be considered safe by the EU. 45 redundancies because of Brexit. But, hey, what’s the loss of British jobs to your annoyance at cookie notifications.
Not much point calling for a closer relationship with the EU if the EU is still in a vindictive mood, then, is there?
Again, the Brexiteers paranoid fever dreams suggest that the EU applying its own laws to the UK as much as the rest of the world is being "vindictive". In the meantime I'm advising clients left, right and centre on how to make redundancies as they relocate service sector jobs to the EU.
Poor little UK, we're so hard done by, why can't we have our cake and eat it? Why?
The EU doesn't care about "applying its own laws" when it doesn't suit them, so if they're choosing to do so in this case then, yes, they're being vindictive.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
If you get the cookie notification each time, either you are not accepting or configuring cookies, or you have set the browser to delete them on closure. Most people see the pop-up only on their first visit to a site and then every few months as cookies expire. Most people probably think this is a big fuss about nothing.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
That’s not how it works. The U.K. will be seen as a jurisdiction where people’s data is not safe and the EU will put obstacles in the way of data being sent here. I’m currently offshoring a client’s 45 jobs to the Netherlands because their customers are concerned that the data centres they run here will no longer be considered safe by the EU. 45 redundancies because of Brexit. But, hey, what’s the loss of British jobs to your annoyance at cookie notifications.
Not much point calling for a closer relationship with the EU if the EU is still in a vindictive mood, then, is there?
That's your perception. But the real issue is simply that it would itself be a criminal offence to send data from the EU to an area where the standards of security are inadequate (e.g. because it has been made compulsory for hospitals and/or researchers eomployed on public grant moneys to give data to UKG/DoH nominated "partners").
Then the problem can be solved by the EU accepting that the UK's standards are intended to produce the equivalent effect without being identical.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since. [snip]
Utter poppycock. I didn't 'falsely claim' anything of the sort. I correctly pointed out that the period of sharp price falls (circa 1989-1991) was a bad time to be first time buyer, and you and @williamglenn then started quoting figures from 1995/6, which was exactly when the market eventually started to recover. Please don't lie about what I said.
You specifically said the "mid 1990s", if I recall correctly?
No I didn't.
Williamglenn said that the mid 90s were a good time to be a first time buyer (subsequently claimed to be the best time to be one), you rejected that and said it was a bad time.
You were wrong. Categorically and completely wrong.
At no stage of the early to mid 90s was it a worse time to be a first time buyer than now. The house price falls in the early 90s allowed property to become affordable for first time buyers. It absolutely should happen again.
You justified your claim by saying Look here's a doc saying there were 950,000 buyers in 1995, biggest year ever. When it was pointed out that was buyers within previous 3 years giving an average of 315,000 pa you said That makes my point even stronger.
Because it did. It meant the 3 years to 1995 were the strongest ever.
Richard responded to the facts showing 1995 to be the peak by claiming that was when it started to recover, but a recovery from 1995 would show in the three years to 1997 if the years before it were atrocious.
If the three years to 1995 are the highest ever, then that means that collectively 1993, 1994 and 1995 were the highest ever. Which means the price falls in 1991 and 1992 far from locking out first time buyers as claimed, opened the doors to them instead.
Your document just gave the number, it was your gloss that it was a uge record because you hadn't read it properly.
🤦♂️
I quoted like-for-like figures from the same document comparing 1990s levels with 2010s levels. It doesn't matter if its 1 year or 3 years, so long as you're consistent and like-for-like, which I was.
So no the 1990s weren't a huge record because it was comparing 3 years in the 90s to 1 year in the 2010s, it was a huge record because it was a huge record. Because far from being a bad time for first time buyers, the early 90s was a great time for them in the years leading to 1995.
Just a little prick, and I was in and out in five minutes.
For the avoidance of doubt, I've just had my flu jab!
Had mine yesterday. I was late for the appointment, but there was absolutely no one else there apart from the staff. If everywhere's like that, take-up will be pretty low.
I had my flu jab yesterday. I'm not bothering with a Covid 4th jab though
Got my flu jab on Saturday coming but covid booster is not until next Wednesday.
To be honest right now I am more worried about bird flu (not for me but my chickens and ducks)
Yep my butcher's turkey supplier has had to cull his entire flock so we've had to resort to Marks and my butcher is bailing on turkeys for this christmas as there is too much risk of late culls etc with a new supplier. The pheasant shoots arent going ahead either, they are just killing them so i'm sourcing as many as possible for the freezer now.
Yep the pheasant and partridge stuff is hitting us hard this year. As I said the other day we normally eat pheasant at least twice a week during the season. I am already looking for frozen turkey for christmas just in case our local supplier has to cull.
My butcher is sourcing a few frozen breasts for favoured customers and if it all goes tittius he'll do us a stuffed Turkey roll joint, we've got a couple of drumsticks frozen in case and a thigh joint too. If Marks come through ok he'll hack the breast into joints for the freezer so we have contingencties. I'll probably get half a dozen or 8 pheasant,s same for Dad which will cover a monthly or so treat.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
The best time to be an FTB was 1995.
A period of high inflation had reduced price-to-incomes to low levels. While the high interest rates of the early 90s had decimated the buy-to-let sector, and had resulted in banks unwilling to lend to landlords, high rental yields (relative to purchase prices) and many landlords having left the market.
Result: if you bought a house or apartment in London 27 years ago you will probably have seen a 10x gain.
Ken Clarke was a better Chancellor than either Gordon Brown or George Osborne. I doubt he would have implemented a monetary policy framework that ignored asset bubbles and then made it government policy to keep them inflated forever.
I come as close to agreeing with this as is possible for somebody allergic to the Tories. Clarke was very able.
Brown - overrated Chancellor, underrated PM. Let the City run riot and crash. Handled the resulting crisis superbly.
Osborne - the most political Chancellor ever. Concerned exclusively with party advantage.
Just a little prick, and I was in and out in five minutes.
For the avoidance of doubt, I've just had my flu jab!
Had mine yesterday. I was late for the appointment, but there was absolutely no one else there apart from the staff. If everywhere's like that, take-up will be pretty low.
Our local surgery is running them every Saturday so as to avoid messing up normal appointments. They have been pretty rammed every Saturday apparently.
I've got my COVID booster booked in for next week. At Matalan! Yes I was surprised.
We have ours booked for the Grafton Centre in Cambridge on Sunday. I didn't try to book mine until relatively recently, but there were tonnes of slots available and I was therefore able to have the same time as the other half. It'll be interesting to see whether or not it's busy. Suspect it won't be. I reckon a lot of those who would really benefit from the booster have filed Covid in their minds as over and won't go to the trouble, which is a great shame because it's quick and simple, and costs you nothing more than the time and money needed to get to the nearest available jab centre.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
You don't need the cookie notification to be GDPR compliant IIRC. Goldplating as ever. As for introducing a British GDPR, it is fucking stupid, totally unnecessary and only anyone who has never run a business would think it worthwhile. So much for Brexit reducing red tape.
There's probably a stronger economic case for alignment with the US on privacy laws than the EU.
I think you will find there is not
As we share a common language and legal heritage, the potential upside for services trade is greater with the US.
The US does not have data protection laws. Many Americans wish that it did.
Air quality in Seattle & environs deteriorating fast this morning (now 9:30am PDT). And expected to worsen throughout the day, due to continuing (indeed increasing) forest fires in WA and OR, plus wind patterns.
Note that October is usually a rainy month in the Emerald City (one reason for that moniker) but not this year. We've had virtually no rain since Spring.
GOOD news is that we are forecast to get a significant precipitation event at the end of this week along with breezy winds out of the North Pacific, which should clear the air AND (even better) dampen the woods and help put out or at least limit forest fires.
Until then, am staying indoors when the air quality deteriorates to "unhealthy for sensitive groups" (including yours truly).
Speaking of smoke, politicos and pundits who revel in denying reality of climate change are blowing smoke up your ass.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since. [snip]
Utter poppycock. I didn't 'falsely claim' anything of the sort. I correctly pointed out that the period of sharp price falls (circa 1989-1991) was a bad time to be first time buyer, and you and @williamglenn then started quoting figures from 1995/6, which was exactly when the market eventually started to recover. Please don't lie about what I said.
You specifically said the "mid 1990s", if I recall correctly?
No I didn't.
OK, I'll take your word for it even though it differs from my recollection. This is where it would be helpful if the Vanilla search was better than useless.
Just go to Richard's profile. It's easy to check what he did and didn't say on the matter (spoiler, he didn't say it).
He sort of did. Direct line of responses to each other:
Nabavi: The trouble is that a big fall in house prices combined with higher interest rates doesn't help younger buyers, quite the opposite. What happens is that the mortgage providers get nervous about affordability and negative equity, and require bigger deposits, whilst at the same time sellers don't put their houses on the market. The whole market seizes up, leaving only a few forced sellers whose properties get bought at low prices by people with cash.
Williamglenn: This is only true if you take an extremely short-term perspective. The mid-90s was a good time to be a first-time buyer.
Nabavi: For those who held on long enough and didn't go bust in the meantime. Prices took nearly a decade to recover from 1989.
Williamglenn: That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Nabavi: Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
The problem is his memory doesn't match the facts. William was right.
LOL! Thanks for showing that I was indeed correct! Although it would have been even clearer if you'd quoted the next few posts.
You were wrong throughout the entire thread, like doubling down on the idea that 1995 was recovery when 1993 and other years of the 90s also had fantastic FTB sale levels, which is why collectively the three years to 1995 were the peak.
If you still want to claim this ridiculous notion that 1990s price falls harmed first time buyers, please name any years in the 1990s where first time buyer levels were consistently lower than recent years? Because its just not true. Nothing your claiming is substantiated in facts, quite the opposite.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
You don't need the cookie notification to be GDPR compliant IIRC. Goldplating as ever. As for introducing a British GDPR, it is fucking stupid, totally unnecessary and only anyone who has never run a business would think it worthwhile. So much for Brexit reducing red tape.
There's probably a stronger economic case for alignment with the US on privacy laws than the EU.
I think you will find there is not
As we share a common language and legal heritage, the potential upside for services trade is greater with the US.
FWIW, privacy and data protection laws in the US are on a state-by-state basis. And are a complete f*cking pain, fwiw.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
If you get the cookie notification each time, either you are not accepting or configuring cookies, or you have set the browser to delete them on closure. Most people see the pop-up only on their first visit to a site and then every few months as cookies expire. Most people probably think this is a big fuss about nothing.
Which shows how stupid and counterproductive the entire thing was.
GDPR supposedly added the cookie thing to give you choice and control so people weren't tracked, but it did the opposite.
Pre-GDPR I had my browser configured to get rid of cookies, because I didn't want to be tracked and I knew what I was doing.
Post-GDPR there is a huge incentive not to get rid of cookies, because you get badgered to death if you're clearing them.
Rather than getting rid of tracking, its become an incentive to ensure everyone is tracked and the only people who don't care about the fuss were the people who didn't care they were tracked pre-GDPR anyway.
Totally fake - it’s a photoshopped Pat Sharp - but you could easily imagine Hunt going for the mullet in his thrusting young buck phase.
It lacks his madly staring eyes!!
I have always been a Hunt fan, but you are right about his eyes. He often looks like he has just been unexpectantly touched up by Chris Pincher in the middle of an interview. I am sure he hasn't enhanced his ambition.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
That’s not how it works. The U.K. will be seen as a jurisdiction where people’s data is not safe and the EU will put obstacles in the way of data being sent here. I’m currently offshoring a client’s 45 jobs to the Netherlands because their customers are concerned that the data centres they run here will no longer be considered safe by the EU. 45 redundancies because of Brexit. But, hey, what’s the loss of British jobs to your annoyance at cookie notifications.
Not much point calling for a closer relationship with the EU if the EU is still in a vindictive mood, then, is there?
That's your perception. But the real issue is simply that it would itself be a criminal offence to send data from the EU to an area where the standards of security are inadequate (e.g. because it has been made compulsory for hospitals and/or researchers eomployed on public grant moneys to give data to UKG/DoH nominated "partners").
Then the problem can be solved by the EU accepting that the UK's standards are intended to produce the equivalent effect without being identical.
But we don't know that yet. If they are not equivalent, we are screwed. And if they are 'equivalent without being identical' why bother doing it all over again and adding more costs to business and m ore to the legislative programme?
Rip off Energy company news. My tarriff renews Nov 1, EoN will only offer me the variable. Single, 2 bed flat, they state my annual use is ca 2500 kwh leccy and 6600 gas, both below the UK average, gas by some distance. Currently pay £86 per month and am £320 in credit. They want £214 per month. They want me to pay as much as the cap on the average UK use household. I believe they can fuck off
Ofgem rules, they don't want you building up a deficit over the winter.
Tough. I'm £320 in credit, if they push it i'll cancel my DD and demand my credit balance back. Im setting the DD to 150 now voluntarily thats the most they are getting.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
The best time to be an FTB was 1995.
A period of high inflation had reduced price-to-incomes to low levels. While the high interest rates of the early 90s had decimated the buy-to-let sector, and had resulted in banks unwilling to lend to landlords, high rental yields (relative to purchase prices) and many landlords having left the market.
Result: if you bought a house or apartment in London 27 years ago you will probably have seen a 10x gain.
Ken Clarke was a better Chancellor than either Gordon Brown or George Osborne. I doubt he would have implemented a monetary policy framework that ignored asset bubbles and then made it government policy to keep them inflated forever.
I come as close to agreeing with this as is possible for somebody allergic to the Tories. Clarke was very able.
Brown - overrated Chancellor, underrated PM. Let the City run riot and crash. Handled the resulting crisis superbly.
Osborne - the most political Chancellor ever. Concerned exclusively with party advantage.
If Osborne was the most political Chancellor ever, concerned exclusively with party advantage, it was only because he was standing on the shoulder of a giant.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
If you get the cookie notification each time, either you are not accepting or configuring cookies, or you have set the browser to delete them on closure. Most people see the pop-up only on their first visit to a site and then every few months as cookies expire. Most people probably think this is a big fuss about nothing.
Which shows how stupid and counterproductive the entire thing was.
GDPR supposedly added the cookie thing to give you choice and control so people weren't tracked, but it did the opposite.
Pre-GDPR I had my browser configured to get rid of cookies, because I didn't want to be tracked and I knew what I was doing.
Post-GDPR there is a huge incentive not to get rid of cookies, because you get badgered to death if you're clearing them.
Rather than getting rid of tracking, its become an incentive to ensure everyone is tracked and the only people who don't care about the fuss were the people who didn't care they were tracked pre-GDPR anyway.
He's full of shite, only Wragg, Brady and Ghani know how many letters have gone in and I doubt they even tell the rest of the 1922 exec much less Labour MPs.
But cannot the MPs who submit such letters to the 22 can tell people - even journo! - what they've done?
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
You don't need the cookie notification to be GDPR compliant IIRC. Goldplating as ever. As for introducing a British GDPR, it is fucking stupid, totally unnecessary and only anyone who has never run a business would think it worthwhile. So much for Brexit reducing red tape.
There's probably a stronger economic case for alignment with the US on privacy laws than the EU.
I think you will find there is not
As we share a common language and legal heritage, the potential upside for services trade is greater with the US.
The US does not have data protection laws. Many Americans wish that it did.
Some states do some don't - it gets complex real quick as you can imagine.
On tracking however it's open warfare - you can do things there to track you across multiple machines that Europeans dream about daily.
I once spent a day with Adobe web marketing division and literally every question they answered with "yes we can do that but not in Europe and as a European customer you can't have it".
Rip off Energy company news. My tarriff renews Nov 1, EoN will only offer me the variable. Single, 2 bed flat, they state my annual use is ca 2500 kwh leccy and 6600 gas, both below the UK average, gas by some distance. Currently pay £86 per month and am £320 in credit. They want £214 per month. They want me to pay as much as the cap on the average UK use household. I believe they can fuck off
Ofgem rules, they don't want you building up a deficit over the winter.
Tough. I'm £320 in credit, if they push it i'll cancel my DD and demand my credit balance back. Im setting the DD to 150 now voluntarily thats the most they are getting.
Oh, yeah, that's perfectly fine because you have looked at it and understand what you're doing. Suppliers' algorithms are programmed (at Ofgem's insistence) on the assumption that most people won't and don't.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
That’s not how it works. The U.K. will be seen as a jurisdiction where people’s data is not safe and the EU will put obstacles in the way of data being sent here. I’m currently offshoring a client’s 45 jobs to the Netherlands because their customers are concerned that the data centres they run here will no longer be considered safe by the EU. 45 redundancies because of Brexit. But, hey, what’s the loss of British jobs to your annoyance at cookie notifications.
Not much point calling for a closer relationship with the EU if the EU is still in a vindictive mood, then, is there?
Again, the Brexiteers paranoid fever dreams suggest that the EU applying its own laws to the UK as much as the rest of the world is being "vindictive". In the meantime I'm advising clients left, right and centre on how to make redundancies as they relocate service sector jobs to the EU.
Poor little UK, we're so hard done by, why can't we have our cake and eat it? Why?
The EU doesn't care about "applying its own laws" when it doesn't suit them, so if they're choosing to do so in this case then, yes, they're being vindictive.
More paranoia. Your basic premise is idiotic. The EU wouldn’t say “don’t send data to the U.K.” it will say “don’t send data to countries with poor data protection”. How would that be vindictive? And they’re not doing anything here. The U.K. is and my client is moving because of his fear of U.K. deregulation. The EU haven’t done anything at all.
While the country falls apart at the seams Brexiteers will always find a way to blame Brussels in the same way Dublin will always find a way to blame London.
hearing that rebel Tories have been asking Labour MPs to help them overthrow Liz Truss
Conservative backbenchers are growing increasingly frustrated with the PM's leadership, but currently lack any mechanisms to remove her
One Labour MP tells me: "Tories are speaking to us saying 'this is a complete nightmare and there is no way out'. We are being asked 'can't you do something about her?'"
The "plotters" being the "stick with Liz" ninnies? And the loyalists being Tory MPs who are more loyal to the country and the real (as opposed to "true") Conservative Party?
Sorry if I shock you, but there is more than one view on most issues.
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Just a little prick, and I was in and out in five minutes.
For the avoidance of doubt, I've just had my flu jab!
Had mine yesterday. I was late for the appointment, but there was absolutely no one else there apart from the staff. If everywhere's like that, take-up will be pretty low.
I had my flu jab yesterday. I'm not bothering with a Covid 4th jab though
Got my flu jab on Saturday coming but covid booster is not until next Wednesday.
To be honest right now I am more worried about bird flu (not for me but my chickens and ducks)
Yep my butcher's turkey supplier has had to cull his entire flock so we've had to resort to Marks and my butcher is bailing on turkeys for this christmas as there is too much risk of late culls etc with a new supplier. The pheasant shoots arent going ahead either, they are just killing them so i'm sourcing as many as possible for the freezer now.
Yep the pheasant and partridge stuff is hitting us hard this year. As I said the other day we normally eat pheasant at least twice a week during the season. I am already looking for frozen turkey for christmas just in case our local supplier has to cull.
You should still be able to source pheasant OK. Partridges are in massive short supply
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
If you get the cookie notification each time, either you are not accepting or configuring cookies, or you have set the browser to delete them on closure. Most people see the pop-up only on their first visit to a site and then every few months as cookies expire. Most people probably think this is a big fuss about nothing.
Which shows how stupid and counterproductive the entire thing was.
GDPR supposedly added the cookie thing to give you choice and control so people weren't tracked, but it did the opposite.
Pre-GDPR I had my browser configured to get rid of cookies, because I didn't want to be tracked and I knew what I was doing.
Post-GDPR there is a huge incentive not to get rid of cookies, because you get badgered to death if you're clearing them.
Rather than getting rid of tracking, its become an incentive to ensure everyone is tracked and the only people who don't care about the fuss were the people who didn't care they were tracked pre-GDPR anyway.
Stupid, stupid, stupid system.
I have to inform you. It is you that is stupid
Cookie tracking has gone. The modern approach is UserAgent tracking which is far more sinister.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
That’s not how it works. The U.K. will be seen as a jurisdiction where people’s data is not safe and the EU will put obstacles in the way of data being sent here. I’m currently offshoring a client’s 45 jobs to the Netherlands because their customers are concerned that the data centres they run here will no longer be considered safe by the EU. 45 redundancies because of Brexit. But, hey, what’s the loss of British jobs to your annoyance at cookie notifications.
Not much point calling for a closer relationship with the EU if the EU is still in a vindictive mood, then, is there?
Again, the Brexiteers paranoid fever dreams suggest that the EU applying its own laws to the UK as much as the rest of the world is being "vindictive". In the meantime I'm advising clients left, right and centre on how to make redundancies as they relocate service sector jobs to the EU.
Poor little UK, we're so hard done by, why can't we have our cake and eat it? Why?
The EU doesn't care about "applying its own laws" when it doesn't suit them, so if they're choosing to do so in this case then, yes, they're being vindictive.
More paranoia. Your basic premise is idiotic. The EU wouldn’t say “don’t send data to the U.K.” it will say “don’t send data to countries with poor data protection”. How would that be vindictive? And they’re not doing anything here. The U.K. is and my client is moving because of his fear of U.K. deregulation. The EU haven’t done anything at all.
While the country falls apart at the seams Brexiteers will always find a way to blame Brussels in the same way Dublin will always find a way to blame London.
See my comment at 5:29, I've already addressed that point.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since. [snip]
Utter poppycock. I didn't 'falsely claim' anything of the sort. I correctly pointed out that the period of sharp price falls (circa 1989-1991) was a bad time to be first time buyer, and you and @williamglenn then started quoting figures from 1995/6, which was exactly when the market eventually started to recover. Please don't lie about what I said.
You specifically said the "mid 1990s", if I recall correctly?
No I didn't.
OK, I'll take your word for it even though it differs from my recollection. This is where it would be helpful if the Vanilla search was better than useless.
Just go to Richard's profile. It's easy to check what he did and didn't say on the matter (spoiler, he didn't say it).
He sort of did. Direct line of responses to each other:
Nabavi: The trouble is that a big fall in house prices combined with higher interest rates doesn't help younger buyers, quite the opposite. What happens is that the mortgage providers get nervous about affordability and negative equity, and require bigger deposits, whilst at the same time sellers don't put their houses on the market. The whole market seizes up, leaving only a few forced sellers whose properties get bought at low prices by people with cash.
Williamglenn: This is only true if you take an extremely short-term perspective. The mid-90s was a good time to be a first-time buyer.
Nabavi: For those who held on long enough and didn't go bust in the meantime. Prices took nearly a decade to recover from 1989.
Williamglenn: That's completely irrelevant if you were a first-time buyer in the 1990s. Your argument that such people were locked out of the market doesn't match the reality of what happened.
Nabavi: Yes, it does, I remember it very well.
The problem is his memory doesn't match the facts. William was right.
LOL! Thanks for showing that I was indeed correct! Although it would have been even clearer if you'd quoted the next few posts.
You were wrong throughout the entire thread, like doubling down on the idea that 1995 was recovery when 1993 and other years of the 90s also had fantastic FTB sale levels, which is why collectively the three years to 1995 were the peak.
If you still want to claim this ridiculous notion that 1990s price falls harmed first time buyers, please name any years in the 1990s where first time buyer levels were consistently lower than recent years? Because its just not true. Nothing your claiming is substantiated in facts, quite the opposite.
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Rip off Energy company news. My tarriff renews Nov 1, EoN will only offer me the variable. Single, 2 bed flat, they state my annual use is ca 2500 kwh leccy and 6600 gas, both below the UK average, gas by some distance. Currently pay £86 per month and am £320 in credit. They want £214 per month. They want me to pay as much as the cap on the average UK use household. I believe they can fuck off
Ofgem rules, they don't want you building up a deficit over the winter.
Tough. I'm £320 in credit, if they push it i'll cancel my DD and demand my credit balance back. Im setting the DD to 150 now voluntarily thats the most they are getting.
Oh, yeah, that's perfectly fine because you have looked at it and understand what you're doing. Suppliers' algorithms are programmed (at Ofgem's insistence) on the assumption that most people won't and don't.
What concerns me is its going to kill people. I live on disability benefits, i cant afford 150 really but 214 would cripple me (pun not intended), some people in my type if position who just accept it are going to starve or freeze or sink into despair.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
The best time to be an FTB was 1995.
A period of high inflation had reduced price-to-incomes to low levels. While the high interest rates of the early 90s had decimated the buy-to-let sector, and had resulted in banks unwilling to lend to landlords, high rental yields (relative to purchase prices) and many landlords having left the market.
Result: if you bought a house or apartment in London 27 years ago you will probably have seen a 10x gain.
Ken Clarke was a better Chancellor than either Gordon Brown or George Osborne. I doubt he would have implemented a monetary policy framework that ignored asset bubbles and then made it government policy to keep them inflated forever.
I come as close to agreeing with this as is possible for somebody allergic to the Tories. Clarke was very able.
Brown - overrated Chancellor, underrated PM. Let the City run riot and crash. Handled the resulting crisis superbly.
Osborne - the most political Chancellor ever. Concerned exclusively with party advantage.
If Osborne was the most political Chancellor ever, concerned exclusively with party advantage, it was only because he was standing on the shoulder of a giant.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
If you get the cookie notification each time, either you are not accepting or configuring cookies, or you have set the browser to delete them on closure. Most people see the pop-up only on their first visit to a site and then every few months as cookies expire. Most people probably think this is a big fuss about nothing.
Which shows how stupid and counterproductive the entire thing was.
GDPR supposedly added the cookie thing to give you choice and control so people weren't tracked, but it did the opposite.
Pre-GDPR I had my browser configured to get rid of cookies, because I didn't want to be tracked and I knew what I was doing.
Post-GDPR there is a huge incentive not to get rid of cookies, because you get badgered to death if you're clearing them.
Rather than getting rid of tracking, its become an incentive to ensure everyone is tracked and the only people who don't care about the fuss were the people who didn't care they were tracked pre-GDPR anyway.
Stupid, stupid, stupid system.
I have to inform you. It is you that is stupid
Cookie tracking has gone. The modern approach is UserAgent tracking which is far more sinister.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
That’s not how it works. The U.K. will be seen as a jurisdiction where people’s data is not safe and the EU will put obstacles in the way of data being sent here. I’m currently offshoring a client’s 45 jobs to the Netherlands because their customers are concerned that the data centres they run here will no longer be considered safe by the EU. 45 redundancies because of Brexit. But, hey, what’s the loss of British jobs to your annoyance at cookie notifications.
Not much point calling for a closer relationship with the EU if the EU is still in a vindictive mood, then, is there?
That's your perception. But the real issue is simply that it would itself be a criminal offence to send data from the EU to an area where the standards of security are inadequate (e.g. because it has been made compulsory for hospitals and/or researchers eomployed on public grant moneys to give data to UKG/DoH nominated "partners").
Then the problem can be solved by the EU accepting that the UK's standards are intended to produce the equivalent effect without being identical.
Sadly, although you seem to have intentionally missed the point, the new UK standards don't meet the EU's standards. So, we fall into the inadequate area.
hearing that rebel Tories have been asking Labour MPs to help them overthrow Liz Truss
Conservative backbenchers are growing increasingly frustrated with the PM's leadership, but currently lack any mechanisms to remove her
One Labour MP tells me: "Tories are speaking to us saying 'this is a complete nightmare and there is no way out'. We are being asked 'can't you do something about her?'"
Otherwise idiotic backbenchers and the SNP would be calling VONCs every day which would paralyse the government and parliament.
*The PM can also call for a vote of confidence.
But if enough Tories want her gone, they can get Starmer to call for the VoNC and then either abstain or vote against the govt. Admittedly they would then have to face the electorate...
What are the Germans thinking? It beggars belief. Russia in particular is a far bigger threat to Germany than the US.
The figures seem to indicate that Germans are in general far less likely to perceive other countries as "major security threats" than Americans are.
Interesting why that would be.
Because they have US protection whereas the US has to look after itself?
Maybe but I reckon it's more about bellicosity v pacifism.
Eg imagine you're posed the question, "which foreign countries iyo are a major physical threat to our nation?"
A bellicose nationalistic person will probably have a long list, because they're generally up for a rumble, they're looking for a fight, whereas a pacifist will be the opposite, the thought of war disgusts them so they'll seek to not classify other countries as military threats.
China has recruited dozens of former British military pilots to teach the Chinese armed forces how to defeat western warplanes & helicopters in a “threat to UK interests”, officials have revealed.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
That’s not how it works. The U.K. will be seen as a jurisdiction where people’s data is not safe and the EU will put obstacles in the way of data being sent here. I’m currently offshoring a client’s 45 jobs to the Netherlands because their customers are concerned that the data centres they run here will no longer be considered safe by the EU. 45 redundancies because of Brexit. But, hey, what’s the loss of British jobs to your annoyance at cookie notifications.
Not much point calling for a closer relationship with the EU if the EU is still in a vindictive mood, then, is there?
That's your perception. But the real issue is simply that it would itself be a criminal offence to send data from the EU to an area where the standards of security are inadequate (e.g. because it has been made compulsory for hospitals and/or researchers eomployed on public grant moneys to give data to UKG/DoH nominated "partners").
Then the problem can be solved by the EU accepting that the UK's standards are intended to produce the equivalent effect without being identical.
Sadly, although you seem to have intentionally missed the point, the new UK standards don't meet the EU's standards. So, we fall into the inadequate area.
The US and the rest of the world cope just fine like that.
If we wanted to be in the EU's standards, we could be in the EU. We're not. We should choose our own standards, and if you want to trade with the EU that's your choice to deal with.
hearing that rebel Tories have been asking Labour MPs to help them overthrow Liz Truss
Conservative backbenchers are growing increasingly frustrated with the PM's leadership, but currently lack any mechanisms to remove her
One Labour MP tells me: "Tories are speaking to us saying 'this is a complete nightmare and there is no way out'. We are being asked 'can't you do something about her?'"
Otherwise idiotic backbenchers and the SNP would be calling VONCs every day which would paralyse the government and parliament.
*The PM can also call for a vote of confidence.
But if enough Tories want her gone, they can get Starmer to call for the VoNC and then either abstain or vote against the govt. Admittedly they would then have to face the electorate...
Such MPs would automatically lose the Tory Whip.
Lab and LD may offer to stand aside for them to run as indies and form a new grouping in the new parliament?
hearing that rebel Tories have been asking Labour MPs to help them overthrow Liz Truss
Conservative backbenchers are growing increasingly frustrated with the PM's leadership, but currently lack any mechanisms to remove her
One Labour MP tells me: "Tories are speaking to us saying 'this is a complete nightmare and there is no way out'. We are being asked 'can't you do something about her?'"
Otherwise idiotic backbenchers and the SNP would be calling VONCs every day which would paralyse the government and parliament.
*The PM can also call for a vote of confidence.
But if enough Tories want her gone, they can get Starmer to call for the VoNC and then either abstain or vote against the govt. Admittedly they would then have to face the electorate...
Such MPs would automatically lose the Tory Whip.
They wouldn't because there wouldn't be a Tory whip because Parliament would dissolve. Reselection might be an issue.
Given that everything I do also has EU customers I still need to meet GDPR requirements so how does this help me or anyone else?
You do realise not everyone else has EU customers, don't you?
You can choose to apply GDPR, just as American or Australian firms can choose to do so too.
Firms that don't have EU customers, won't need to. They'll be free to choose, which is fair enough in a free society.
Silly little nuisance but for me the first thing to be scrapped in a British GDPR is getting rid of that stupid cookie notification every time you go to a website. Though like you, some websites could choose to still meet GDPR, even if they don't need to.
That’s not how it works. The U.K. will be seen as a jurisdiction where people’s data is not safe and the EU will put obstacles in the way of data being sent here. I’m currently offshoring a client’s 45 jobs to the Netherlands because their customers are concerned that the data centres they run here will no longer be considered safe by the EU. 45 redundancies because of Brexit. But, hey, what’s the loss of British jobs to your annoyance at cookie notifications.
Not much point calling for a closer relationship with the EU if the EU is still in a vindictive mood, then, is there?
That's your perception. But the real issue is simply that it would itself be a criminal offence to send data from the EU to an area where the standards of security are inadequate (e.g. because it has been made compulsory for hospitals and/or researchers eomployed on public grant moneys to give data to UKG/DoH nominated "partners").
Then the problem can be solved by the EU accepting that the UK's standards are intended to produce the equivalent effect without being identical.
Sadly, although you seem to have intentionally missed the point, the new UK standards don't meet the EU's standards. So, we fall into the inadequate area.
In what way, specifically? As far as I can tell the details haven't even been published since Donelan's speech two weeks ago.
Rip off Energy company news. My tarriff renews Nov 1, EoN will only offer me the variable. Single, 2 bed flat, they state my annual use is ca 2500 kwh leccy and 6600 gas, both below the UK average, gas by some distance. Currently pay £86 per month and am £320 in credit. They want £214 per month. They want me to pay as much as the cap on the average UK use household. I believe they can fuck off
I had a similar discussion with EDF who wanted me to go from £100 to £250 - I kept asking them "show me your working" - to which answer came there none - so in the end they asked me how much I wanted to go up by and they agreed to my figure. I've had one refund so far and will likely get another when my next bill falls due. It's a racket to keep their cash-flow brimming.
What are the Germans thinking? It beggars belief. Russia in particular is a far bigger threat to Germany than the US.
The figures seem to indicate that Germans are in general far less likely to perceive other countries as "major security threats" than Americans are.
Interesting why that would be.
Because they have US protection whereas the US has to look after itself?
Maybe but I reckon it's more about bellicosity v pacifism.
Eg imagine you're posed the question, "which foreign countries iyo are a major physical threat to our nation?"
A bellicose nationalistic person will probably have a long list, because they're generally up for a rumble, they're looking for a fight, whereas a pacifist will be the opposite, the thought of war disgusts them so they'll seek to not classify other countries as military threats.
Ah, the lovely sound of self-righteous victim blaming.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other countries.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
certainly not bonds at present...stock market is acting awfully too...us tech shares are a disaster zone with no sign of fed pivot yet...property is overpriced and illiquid....no good options at present im afraid
It seems like the mood has swung against the Democrats in recent days when it comes to the Midterms. and that it is looking more and more likely the GOP will do well.
The 1/6 Ladbrokes are offering for the GOP to take the House majority is probably free money at this point bar a Hail Mary moment given it's a 16% return for a few weeks. I would be more looking at the GOP to get more than 50 seats which is 5/4. It increasingly looks like Johnson will hold on in WI so that means PA as the most likely Dem gain. But Fetterman is struggling to fight off both the crime and health issues while, on the flip side, NV has been showing small but consistent leads for the GOP for both the Senate and the Governor's race and GA /AZ look competitive.
If you think that the tide could truly turn than the 53 (8/1) or 54 (16/1) seats might be of interest - at 53, the GOP keeps its seats plus AZ / GA / NV or.54, if you add on one of NH or CO.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Property. Supply is restricted and will continue to be so (product of Government inaction and stroppy nimbies.) Demand will continue to rise because the population will continue to grow. Any interest rate-related price drop liable to be temporary.
It would be far better, of course, for the overall health of the economy if we didn't have spiralling house prices, but they're unlikely to fall for any extended period of time. As a long-term investment it surely trumps all else?
Rip off Energy company news. My tarriff renews Nov 1, EoN will only offer me the variable. Single, 2 bed flat, they state my annual use is ca 2500 kwh leccy and 6600 gas, both below the UK average, gas by some distance. Currently pay £86 per month and am £320 in credit. They want £214 per month. They want me to pay as much as the cap on the average UK use household. I believe they can fuck off
I had a similar discussion with EDF who wanted me to go from £100 to £250 - I kept asking them "show me your working" - to which answer came there none - so in the end they asked me how much I wanted to go up by and they agreed to my figure. I've had one refund so far and will likely get another when my next bill falls due. It's a racket to keep their cash-flow brimming.
I've noted they are not using the £2500 cap figures, they are 'waiting for details from the government' and 'you wont end up paying these rates' so they are working from a higher base trying to shaft as many as they can up front. I very much hope they are sued into bankruptcy
hearing that rebel Tories have been asking Labour MPs to help them overthrow Liz Truss
Conservative backbenchers are growing increasingly frustrated with the PM's leadership, but currently lack any mechanisms to remove her
One Labour MP tells me: "Tories are speaking to us saying 'this is a complete nightmare and there is no way out'. We are being asked 'can't you do something about her?'"
Otherwise idiotic backbenchers and the SNP would be calling VONCs every day which would paralyse the government and parliament.
*The PM can also call for a vote of confidence.
But if enough Tories want her gone, they can get Starmer to call for the VoNC and then either abstain or vote against the govt. Admittedly they would then have to face the electorate...
Such MPs would automatically lose the Tory Whip.
Lab and LD may offer to stand aside for them to run as indies and form a new grouping in the new parliament?
No way that would happen in seats the Opposition parties expect to win.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Property. Supply is restricted and will continue to be so (product of Government inaction and stroppy nimbies.) Demand will continue to rise because the population will continue to grow. Any interest rate-related price drop liable to be temporary.
It would be far better, of course, for the overall health of the economy if we didn't have spiralling house prices, but they're unlikely to fall for any extended period of time. As a long-term investment it surely trumps all else?
I think he should get a nice little place by the seaside
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Yep. Wealth tax, come on down! Not one for the manifesto though. Labour have to win first. Play it safe. Just hang all the mess on the Tories and rely on a competent articulate Leader and Team and Time For A Change.
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
hearing that rebel Tories have been asking Labour MPs to help them overthrow Liz Truss
Conservative backbenchers are growing increasingly frustrated with the PM's leadership, but currently lack any mechanisms to remove her
One Labour MP tells me: "Tories are speaking to us saying 'this is a complete nightmare and there is no way out'. We are being asked 'can't you do something about her?'"
Otherwise idiotic backbenchers and the SNP would be calling VONCs every day which would paralyse the government and parliament.
*The PM can also call for a vote of confidence.
But if enough Tories want her gone, they can get Starmer to call for the VoNC and then either abstain or vote against the govt. Admittedly they would then have to face the electorate...
Such MPs would automatically lose the Tory Whip.
Lab and LD may offer to stand aside for them to run as indies and form a new grouping in the new parliament?
No way that would happen in seats the Opposition parties expect to win.
Given how many seats they stand to win right now its not unthinkable. And necessary. A 300 seat majority for example would be incredibly dangerous territory. Edit - give up 20 or 30 seats to indies/new grouping in return for not having to be locked out for 2 more years. 'For the nation'
Seeing as word on (Downing) street is that she is just a UK version of Denny Hastert (remember him) who is just window dressing for the UK version of Tom DeLay (ditto) without TDL's "convictions" (which WERE overturned on appeal).
What are the Germans thinking? It beggars belief. Russia in particular is a far bigger threat to Germany than the US.
The figures seem to indicate that Germans are in general far less likely to perceive other countries as "major security threats" than Americans are.
Interesting why that would be.
Because they have US protection whereas the US has to look after itself?
Maybe but I reckon it's more about bellicosity v pacifism.
Eg imagine you're posed the question, "which foreign countries iyo are a major physical threat to our nation?"
A bellicose nationalistic person will probably have a long list, because they're generally up for a rumble, they're looking for a fight, whereas a pacifist will be the opposite, the thought of war disgusts them so they'll seek to not classify other countries as military threats.
Ah, the lovely sound of self-righteous victim blaming.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other countries.
Not because of NATOs bellicosity.
You seem to be responding to a post other than mine. Really poor show.
I was merely floating a theory to explain the big 'US vs Germany' difference on that poll William Glen posted.
What are the Germans thinking? It beggars belief. Russia in particular is a far bigger threat to Germany than the US.
The figures seem to indicate that Germans are in general far less likely to perceive other countries as "major security threats" than Americans are.
Interesting why that would be.
Because they have US protection whereas the US has to look after itself?
Maybe but I reckon it's more about bellicosity v pacifism.
Eg imagine you're posed the question, "which foreign countries iyo are a major physical threat to our nation?"
A bellicose nationalistic person will probably have a long list, because they're generally up for a rumble, they're looking for a fight, whereas a pacifist will be the opposite, the thought of war disgusts them so they'll seek to not classify other countries as military threats.
It's probably a combination of things. Certainly the USA has naturally been involved in a lot more foreign military interventions than Germany in recent decades - if that is your measure of bellicosity.
But I suspect it might be to do with Americans thinking major security threat = their superpower status being challenged. Whereas Germany has no superpower status to be challenged, and maybe Germans interpret "major security threat" as being likely to successfully invade Germany, which most Germans think is unlikely from either Russia or China.
But it would be interesting to compare with other countries.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since. [snip]
Utter poppycock. I didn't 'falsely claim' anything of the sort. I correctly pointed out that the period of sharp price falls (circa 1989-1991) was a bad time to be first time buyer, and you and @williamglenn then started quoting figures from 1995/6, which was exactly when the market eventually started to recover. Please don't lie about what I said.
You specifically said the "mid 1990s", if I recall correctly?
No I didn't.
Williamglenn said that the mid 90s were a good time to be a first time buyer (subsequently claimed to be the best time to be one), you rejected that and said it was a bad time.
You were wrong. Categorically and completely wrong.
At no stage of the early to mid 90s was it a worse time to be a first time buyer than now. The house price falls in the early 90s allowed property to become affordable for first time buyers. It absolutely should happen again.
You justified your claim by saying Look here's a doc saying there were 950,000 buyers in 1995, biggest year ever. When it was pointed out that was buyers within previous 3 years giving an average of 315,000 pa you said That makes my point even stronger.
Because it did. It meant the 3 years to 1995 were the strongest ever.
Richard responded to the facts showing 1995 to be the peak by claiming that was when it started to recover, but a recovery from 1995 would show in the three years to 1997 if the years before it were atrocious.
If the three years to 1995 are the highest ever, then that means that collectively 1993, 1994 and 1995 were the highest ever. Which means the price falls in 1991 and 1992 far from locking out first time buyers as claimed, opened the doors to them instead.
Your document just gave the number, it was your gloss that it was a uge record because you hadn't read it properly.
Mid nineties was a difficult time to be a first time buyer, as I know from direct experience. The problem wasn't sale prices so much as restrictions of multiples of earnings, high interest rates, indemnity insurance for higher loan to value loans and large deposits required. This was because of the prevailing problems with negative equity and consequentially cautious approach of the lenders.
I bought a 2 bed terrace in 1992 and it maxed me out financially, and It was only marginally better off when I bought a 3 bed semi in 1996 in Leicester. I struggled to make the payments on a junior doctors salary once more.
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Yep. Wealth tax, come on down! Not one for the manifesto though. Labour have to win first. Play it safe. Just hang all the mess on the Tories and rely on a competent articulate Leader and Team and Time For A Change.
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
I am in favour of a punitive wealth tax on public sector pensions that provide an income in excess of the average wage. Tax that until the pips squeak and use it to fund pensions for those in the private sector
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Honestly I doubt that will be enough. We've had almost 2 decades of stagnation. Labour will be inheriting a pretty ugly economic outlook with rising borrowing costs. I think they'll have to tailor their ambition a bit.
Mark Carney had a stat in the FT that we used to be 90% of German economy and now we are 70%. Certainly Labour can reorient the economy towards growth, but the damage the Tories have done isn't going to just vanish because we have a sensible government at last.
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Yep. Wealth tax, come on down! Not one for the manifesto though. Labour have to win first. Play it safe. Just hang all the mess on the Tories and rely on a competent articulate Leader and Team and Time For A Change.
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
I am in favour of a punitive wealth tax on public sector pensions that provide an income in excess of the average wage. Tax that until the pips squeak and use it to fund pensions for those in the private sector
That has been done with the Annual allowance and lifetime allowances. It is why a 56 year old colleague of mine is going part time. She cannot afford to pay the tax on her NHS pension.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Might not be the worst time to go into equities if you are brave. FTSE250, S&P500 are both down over 20% (S&P, not in sterling terms, but it does at least neutralise the dollar premium). both could of course plummet like paralysed falcons from here on down.
Bond funds are way, way down and this might be a good time to go in. I hate and fear and do not understand bonds, I have just lost a fucking stack in INXG.
There are some 4% for a year deposit fixes around if you can bear the thought of parcelling it into n times £80,000 packages and opening n different bank accounts. Or Hargreaves Lansdown or interactive investor run aggregation services where you send them the wodge and they do the parcelling out.
What are the Germans thinking? It beggars belief. Russia in particular is a far bigger threat to Germany than the US.
The figures seem to indicate that Germans are in general far less likely to perceive other countries as "major security threats" than Americans are.
Interesting why that would be.
Because they have US protection whereas the US has to look after itself?
Maybe but I reckon it's more about bellicosity v pacifism.
Eg imagine you're posed the question, "which foreign countries iyo are a major physical threat to our nation?"
A bellicose nationalistic person will probably have a long list, because they're generally up for a rumble, they're looking for a fight, whereas a pacifist will be the opposite, the thought of war disgusts them so they'll seek to not classify other countries as military threats.
Ah, the lovely sound of self-righteous victim blaming.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other countries.
Not because of NATOs bellicosity.
You seem to be responding to a post other than mine. Really poor show.
I was merely floating a theory to explain the big 'US vs Germany' difference on that poll William Glen posted.
If your theory is that American bellicosity makes Russia seem a threat, then your theory is wrong.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other nations.
Don't victim blame. NATO is not bellicose or the aggressor here, Russia is.
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Yep. Wealth tax, come on down! Not one for the manifesto though. Labour have to win first. Play it safe. Just hang all the mess on the Tories and rely on a competent articulate Leader and Team and Time For A Change.
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
Oh it can go into the manifesto - it's a single line "investigate replacement for Council Tax given that it's based on 30 year old data that was often incorrect in the first place"
Seriously the Tories are going to ditch the Triple Lock . I would be gobsmacked . That’s their core vote .
I really can’t see this happening.
Feels more like the 'No 10 spokesperson' was simply reflecting that Liz Truss doesn't really have a say on whether the Triple Lock is going or not - it's up to Hunt now.
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Yep. Wealth tax, come on down! Not one for the manifesto though. Labour have to win first. Play it safe. Just hang all the mess on the Tories and rely on a competent articulate Leader and Team and Time For A Change.
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
I am in favour of a punitive wealth tax on public sector pensions that provide an income in excess of the average wage. Tax that until the pips squeak and use it to fund pensions for those in the private sector
That has been done with the Annual allowance and lifetime allowances. It is why a 56 year old colleague of mine is going part time. She cannot afford to pay the tax on her NHS pension.
I am sure there are many in the private sector whose hearts are bleeding profusely for the poor thing. What sort of final salary percentage is she looking forward to?
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
Seriously the Tories are going to ditch the Triple Lock . I would be gobsmacked . That’s their core vote .
I really can’t see this happening.
There aren't many alternatives left. I think it's probably being raised so that they can present it as being the only alternative to whatever they end up announcing on All Hallows Eve.
What they do announce isn't going to be popular, so it's useful to scare people with something worse first.
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Yep. Wealth tax, come on down! Not one for the manifesto though. Labour have to win first. Play it safe. Just hang all the mess on the Tories and rely on a competent articulate Leader and Team and Time For A Change.
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
I am in favour of a punitive wealth tax on public sector pensions that provide an income in excess of the average wage. Tax that until the pips squeak and use it to fund pensions for those in the private sector
That has been done with the Annual allowance and lifetime allowances. It is why a 56 year old colleague of mine is going part time. She cannot afford to pay the tax on her NHS pension.
Taxing contributions and taxing pensions are both ideas, but are separate ones.
Your 56 year old colleague isn't in receipt of a pension yet surely? Taxing pensions should mean taxing the income from pensioners, who are already pensioners.
I wouldn't punitively tax them. Just ensure they pay their fair share of tax that matches what a young graduate on the same income gets taxed.
What are the Germans thinking? It beggars belief. Russia in particular is a far bigger threat to Germany than the US.
The figures seem to indicate that Germans are in general far less likely to perceive other countries as "major security threats" than Americans are.
Interesting why that would be.
Because they have US protection whereas the US has to look after itself?
Maybe but I reckon it's more about bellicosity v pacifism.
Eg imagine you're posed the question, "which foreign countries iyo are a major physical threat to our nation?"
A bellicose nationalistic person will probably have a long list, because they're generally up for a rumble, they're looking for a fight, whereas a pacifist will be the opposite, the thought of war disgusts them so they'll seek to not classify other countries as military threats.
Ah, the lovely sound of self-righteous victim blaming.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other countries.
Not because of NATOs bellicosity.
You seem to be responding to a post other than mine. Really poor show.
I was merely floating a theory to explain the big 'US vs Germany' difference on that poll William Glen posted.
If your theory is that American bellicosity makes Russia seem a threat, then your theory is wrong.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other nations.
Don't victim blame. NATO is not bellicose or the aggressor here, Russia is.
But if we're assessing threats as they pertain to ourselves, geographical location and potential reach must be taken into account. China is a much bigger threat to Taiwan than it is to the UK etc.
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Yep. Wealth tax, come on down! Not one for the manifesto though. Labour have to win first. Play it safe. Just hang all the mess on the Tories and rely on a competent articulate Leader and Team and Time For A Change.
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
I am in favour of a punitive wealth tax on public sector pensions that provide an income in excess of the average wage. Tax that until the pips squeak and use it to fund pensions for those in the private sector
That has been done with the Annual allowance and lifetime allowances. It is why a 56 year old colleague of mine is going part time. She cannot afford to pay the tax on her NHS pension.
Taxing contributions and taxing pensions are both ideas, but are separate ones.
Your 56 year old colleague isn't in receipt of a pension yet surely? Taxing pensions should mean taxing the income from pensioners, who are already pensioners.
I wouldn't punitively tax them. Just ensure they pay their fair share of tax that matches what a young graduate on the same income gets taxed.
This is surely the obvious answer.
Keep the Triple Lock but make sure everybody pays the same (income-related) rates of NI+Income Tax on their income, regardless of where that income has come from, regardless of how old they are.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Might not be the worst time to go into equities if you are brave. FTSE250, S&P500 are both down over 20% (S&P, not in sterling terms, but it does at least neutralise the dollar premium). both could of course plummet like paralysed falcons from here on down.
Bond funds are way, way down and this might be a good time to go in. I hate and fear and do not understand bonds, I have just lost a fucking stack in INXG.
There are some 4% for a year deposit fixes around if you can bear the thought of parcelling it into n times £80,000 packages and opening n different bank accounts. Or Hargreaves Lansdown or interactive investor run aggregation services where you send them the wodge and they do the parcelling out.
NOT ADVICE
If you buy an S&P 500 ETF are you exposed to currency risk/benefit or does your return just track the index?
What are the Germans thinking? It beggars belief. Russia in particular is a far bigger threat to Germany than the US.
The figures seem to indicate that Germans are in general far less likely to perceive other countries as "major security threats" than Americans are.
Interesting why that would be.
Because they have US protection whereas the US has to look after itself?
Maybe but I reckon it's more about bellicosity v pacifism.
Eg imagine you're posed the question, "which foreign countries iyo are a major physical threat to our nation?"
A bellicose nationalistic person will probably have a long list, because they're generally up for a rumble, they're looking for a fight, whereas a pacifist will be the opposite, the thought of war disgusts them so they'll seek to not classify other countries as military threats.
Ah, the lovely sound of self-righteous victim blaming.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other countries.
Not because of NATOs bellicosity.
You seem to be responding to a post other than mine. Really poor show.
I was merely floating a theory to explain the big 'US vs Germany' difference on that poll William Glen posted.
If your theory is that American bellicosity makes Russia seem a threat, then your theory is wrong.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other nations.
Don't victim blame. NATO is not bellicose or the aggressor here, Russia is.
NATO is not the victim either, Barty. Thought experiment: I go up to the maddest fattest drunk on Sauchiehall Street on a Friday night and say "Your wife takes it up the ---- from a ----, you fat nonce."Is there not a tiny part of you that wants to tell me tyhat perhaps I should have handled that a bit differently after, of course, condemning him for his reaction to provocation?
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Might not be the worst time to go into equities if you are brave. FTSE250, S&P500 are both down over 20% (S&P, not in sterling terms, but it does at least neutralise the dollar premium). both could of course plummet like paralysed falcons from here on down.
Bond funds are way, way down and this might be a good time to go in. I hate and fear and do not understand bonds, I have just lost a fucking stack in INXG.
There are some 4% for a year deposit fixes around if you can bear the thought of parcelling it into n times £80,000 packages and opening n different bank accounts. Or Hargreaves Lansdown or interactive investor run aggregation services where you send them the wodge and they do the parcelling out.
NOT ADVICE
I’ve started to drip back into Nasdaq. I don’t think you’ll be upset having bought at these values in 3 years.
Comments
However, Starmer would deffo take an election right now, he would bite your hand off for it. It's a total opposite situation to Corbyn in late 2019, who by that point was probably counting on the Government to collapse somehow, or a no deal Brexit to go through and see Labour shoot up in the polls - but could hardly refuse an election himself.
video showing how accurate and powerful the missiles supplied by Iran to Russia are.
https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1582387371957702656?s=20&t=ZWY0R4f7sdPTOfHJnsVGVA
I quoted like-for-like figures from the same document comparing 1990s levels with 2010s levels. It doesn't matter if its 1 year or 3 years, so long as you're consistent and like-for-like, which I was.
So no the 1990s weren't a huge record because it was comparing 3 years in the 90s to 1 year in the 2010s, it was a huge record because it was a huge record. Because far from being a bad time for first time buyers, the early 90s was a great time for them in the years leading to 1995.
I'll probably get half a dozen or 8 pheasant,s same for Dad which will cover a monthly or so treat.
Brown - overrated Chancellor, underrated PM. Let the City run riot and crash. Handled the resulting crisis superbly.
Osborne - the most political Chancellor ever. Concerned exclusively with party advantage.
Air quality in Seattle & environs deteriorating fast this morning (now 9:30am PDT). And expected to worsen throughout the day, due to continuing (indeed increasing) forest fires in WA and OR, plus wind patterns.
Note that October is usually a rainy month in the Emerald City (one reason for that moniker) but not this year. We've had virtually no rain since Spring.
GOOD news is that we are forecast to get a significant precipitation event at the end of this week along with breezy winds out of the North Pacific, which should clear the air AND (even better) dampen the woods and help put out or at least limit forest fires.
Until then, am staying indoors when the air quality deteriorates to "unhealthy for sensitive groups" (including yours truly).
Speaking of smoke, politicos and pundits who revel in denying reality of climate change are blowing smoke up your ass.
https://www.whatmortgage.co.uk/news/first-time-buyer-numbers-soar-to-highest-level-for-two-decades/
Up 40% from your anaemic mid 90s figures
GDPR supposedly added the cookie thing to give you choice and control so people weren't tracked, but it did the opposite.
Pre-GDPR I had my browser configured to get rid of cookies, because I didn't want to be tracked and I knew what I was doing.
Post-GDPR there is a huge incentive not to get rid of cookies, because you get badgered to death if you're clearing them.
Rather than getting rid of tracking, its become an incentive to ensure everyone is tracked and the only people who don't care about the fuss were the people who didn't care they were tracked pre-GDPR anyway.
Stupid, stupid, stupid system.
On tracking however it's open warfare - you can do things there to track you across multiple machines that Europeans dream about daily.
I once spent a day with Adobe web marketing division and literally every question they answered with "yes we can do that but not in Europe and as a European customer you can't have it".
While the country falls apart at the seams Brexiteers will always find a way to blame Brussels in the same way Dublin will always find a way to blame London.
Appalled? Hell yes!
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
https://www.ft.com/content/063fce40-3f45-46ab-bfbf-6158d082ed0c
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63303880
Gosh
Eg imagine you're posed the question, "which foreign countries iyo are a major physical threat to our nation?"
A bellicose nationalistic person will probably have a long list, because they're generally up for a rumble, they're looking for a fight, whereas a pacifist will be the opposite, the thought of war disgusts them so they'll seek to not classify other countries as military threats.
https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1582144939567116288?s=20&t=cECGdYB9u1RRuTG8WUq4Cw
If we wanted to be in the EU's standards, we could be in the EU. We're not. We should choose our own standards, and if you want to trade with the EU that's your choice to deal with.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other countries.
Not because of NATOs bellicosity.
It seems like the mood has swung against the Democrats in recent days when it comes to the Midterms. and that it is looking more and more likely the GOP will do well.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/17/democrats-worry-they-peaked-too-soon-00062189
The 1/6 Ladbrokes are offering for the GOP to take the House majority is probably free money at this point bar a Hail Mary moment given it's a 16% return for a few weeks. I would be more looking at the GOP to get more than 50 seats which is 5/4. It increasingly looks like Johnson will hold on in WI so that means PA as the most likely Dem gain. But Fetterman is struggling to fight off both the crime and health issues while, on the flip side, NV has been showing small but consistent leads for the GOP for both the Senate and the Governor's race and GA /AZ look competitive.
If you think that the tide could truly turn than the 53 (8/1) or 54 (16/1) seats might be of interest - at 53, the GOP keeps its seats plus AZ / GA / NV or.54, if you add on one of NH or CO.
It would be far better, of course, for the overall health of the economy if we didn't have spiralling house prices, but they're unlikely to fall for any extended period of time. As a long-term investment it surely trumps all else?
I very much hope they are sued into bankruptcy
Sisters are drowning her for themselves...
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
Edit - give up 20 or 30 seats to indies/new grouping in return for not having to be locked out for 2 more years. 'For the nation'
https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1582411357827104769
Seeing as word on (Downing) street is that she is just a UK version of Denny Hastert (remember him) who is just window dressing for the UK version of Tom DeLay (ditto) without TDL's "convictions" (which WERE overturned on appeal).
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
I was merely floating a theory to explain the big 'US vs Germany' difference on that poll William Glen posted.
But I suspect it might be to do with Americans thinking major security threat = their superpower status being challenged. Whereas Germany has no superpower status to be challenged, and maybe Germans interpret "major security threat" as being likely to successfully invade Germany, which most Germans think is unlikely from either Russia or China.
But it would be interesting to compare with other countries.
I bought a 2 bed terrace in 1992 and it maxed me out financially, and It was only marginally better off when I bought a 3 bed semi in 1996 in Leicester. I struggled to make the payments on a junior doctors salary once more.
I suspect it was never easy.
Sir, I said 'YOUR COAT!'
I really can’t see this happening.
Mark Carney had a stat in the FT that we used to be 90% of German economy and now we are 70%. Certainly Labour can reorient the economy towards growth, but the damage the Tories have done isn't going to just vanish because we have a sensible government at last.
Bond funds are way, way down and this might be a good time to go in. I hate and fear and do not understand bonds, I have just lost a fucking stack in INXG.
There are some 4% for a year deposit fixes around if you can bear the thought of parcelling it into n times £80,000 packages and opening n different bank accounts. Or Hargreaves Lansdown or interactive investor run aggregation services where you send them the wodge and they do the parcelling out.
NOT ADVICE
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other nations.
Don't victim blame. NATO is not bellicose or the aggressor here, Russia is.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
What they do announce isn't going to be popular, so it's useful to scare people with something worse first.
Your 56 year old colleague isn't in receipt of a pension yet surely? Taxing pensions should mean taxing the income from pensioners, who are already pensioners.
I wouldn't punitively tax them. Just ensure they pay their fair share of tax that matches what a young graduate on the same income gets taxed.
There is no legal requirement to have an election for another 2 years . If the Tories stick with Truss they deserve to be wiped out.
Keep the Triple Lock but make sure everybody pays the same (income-related) rates of NI+Income Tax on their income, regardless of where that income has come from, regardless of how old they are.
Thought experiment: I go up to the maddest fattest drunk on Sauchiehall Street on a Friday night and say "Your wife takes it up the ---- from a ----, you fat nonce."Is there not a tiny part of you that wants to tell me tyhat perhaps I should have handled that a bit differently after, of course, condemning him for his reaction to provocation?