No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
I take issue with this, if they genuinely believe they are a woman then who am I to say they aren't?
What else is a matter of self identification? Race?
Gender which is what I refer, is a concept made up by society, frequently we've had more than two genders in history.
And what some people seem to want to do is deny the existence of biological sex. Ultimately, that's what this is all about.
I spoke to this above, a few nutters do but virtually nobody is saying there aren't two sexes. People seem to dishonestly conflate the two.
Just as there are those who would deny the existence of transgender individuals. It was appearing to flirt with that position which made JK Rowling a hate figure for some, I think.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
I agree that this is not an election winning issue. But don't you understand that there are things which are more important than that - even in politics. Women's rights matter. The rights of women prisoners not to be locked up with male rapists matter, even if not a single vote is changed. When Baroness Hayter makes the comparison with how Labour treated anti-semitism in its ranks, Labour supporters really ought to listen. Because a party where this happens repeatedly is one which, regardless of its poll leads, has a rottenness at its heart.
Ethical behaviour matters regardless of its vote winning capacity. Otherwise you are no better than those who think Boris should be PM regardless of his total lack of a moral compass because he gets votes.
Your dismissal of those who are worried about the way womens understandable concerns are being dismissed rather than being engaged with - something which both Labour and the SNP were forced to do this week - is, bluntly, why misogyny survives and spreads.
I do not discuss this issue to make political points in favour of the Tories. I am no supporter. Very far from it. But because women's rights and position in society matter to me a very great deal - and have done for a very long time - as my posts and headers in the years I have been on this forum, long before you arrived, show.
Also note it is all men on here who glibly dismiss it , say it does not matter , of no concern , etc.
I assume that means me. It is of very great concern that predatory men can gain access to women, especially vulnerable ones. But why are we allowing a micro issue which is largely theoretical to distract us from the MASSIVE issue which is predatory men assaulting raping and killing women without having to declare themselves women and wear a frock?
The trans issue understandably upsets campaigners for women's rights and safety. Why? Because women continue to be assaulted, raped and murdered by predatory men on a seemingly endless basis.
I want to focus on the actual threat that my wife and my daughter face. What's the ratio of man dressed as a man threats vs the man dressed as a woman threats? In real life are women afraid of the person lurking in the shadows being trans? The hugely massively overwhelming number of men who threaten and sometimes assault rape and murder women are men who are men.
That's why it doesn't matter remotely as much as going after the abusers in the Met and the abusers protected by abusers in the Met. And everywhere else. Men preying on women who aren't rans. Because something like Sarah Lawrence happens and there is brief outpouring of revulsion and then no societal change happens.
It was not meant to be you but as you should know living here it is a seriously big issue and danger in Scotland given the mental cases we have running the country at present. They came up with this seriously deranged policy , ignored all the public consultation , listened only to their pet groups like stonewall and other such organisations. They then refused all ECHR inputs , voted down sensible safeguards, claimed there was no evidence whatsoever of any transperson doing wrong and lo and behold we have been bombarded with evidence of wrong un's doing wrong and pretending to get into women's prisons etc. These numpties are unable to say a man is a man and should have no access to women's safe spaces, sports , etc. People on here are making out it is nothing and not a concern to people which is garbage. I care not about all the political right wing , left wing , feminists , etc bollox. A man with his block and tackle should not be allowed into women's areas whether wearing a frock or not.
It is not a seriously big issue and danger in Scotland. You're attacking the SNP and turning it into football politics. They want it, I hate them, so I must campaign against this to get them. I ran for council against the SNP remember, before any suggestion of me backing them is produced.
Two points you raise: It being a big issue, and it being a big threat. Politically this is not a big issue. Here in the North East the big issues are jobs, investment, crumbling services due to budget cuts, drugs and pockets of hard deprivation. And of course independence. People are not prioritising this issue over the ones that actually affect their lives.
And a big threat? Again, every attack, threat of attack or even fear of attack by men. Every one bar a literal handful of cases is a man dressed as a man. I think we should go after the real issue not the fantasy, however much you dream of it wounding your political enemy...
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
I take issue with this, if they genuinely believe they are a woman then who am I to say they aren't?
What else is a matter of self identification? Race?
Gender which is what I refer, is a concept made up by society, frequently we've had more than two genders in history.
I'm not sure that gender is a useful concept at all.
We can say that biologically people are mostly divided into two sexes, male and female, and this has some consequences for society because, on average, thanks to testosterone, most men will be larger, stronger and more aggressive than women.
But beyond that, what is there to say? People are people and vary widely. Is it necessary to have different categories of people on the basis of the ideas they have in their head, and the ways in which they behave? And is there any sense in which these categories need to be legally recognised?
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Also FPT:
Landlords are unlikely to be on long-term fixed interest rate mortgages, government policy has been to slowly discourage small landlords with changes such as the inability to claim interest payments against income tax, there’s evidence of sale prices having reached a peak and starting to fall this year.
All of which is leading to landlords selling up, and a suppply squeeze for rental properties leading to price increases.
I was one of those landlords, albeit not in London.
If I continue in landlording beyond my current tenant, I would (a) sell the current property and (b) form a company to hold the new properties.
Plus, I would only do it if I could afford to buy several - at least five, possibly more - and make it a full time job. Which I think would take a capital of around £700,000.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
Dismissing legitimate concerns as “culture war” is what got Sturgeon into the mess she’s in. Or do you support men competing in women’s sports and sending male rapists with prison onset gender dysphoria to women’s prisons?
"Mess", I am sorry but deep down you know this will change absolutely nothing for her. I know you are desperate for her to do badly but let's be honest, she's going to win a majority of Scottish seats next time around and you know it
Dodging the question - do you support men competing in women’s sports and sending male rapists with prison onset gender dysphoria to women’s prisons?
If a trans person wants to compete in men's chess then I don't see the problem no
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
Presumably the girl - as part of her transition - took testosterone. Why wouldn't that be caught by anti-doping rules? A girl who took testosterone to make her stronger would I assume be banned. So a girl doing the same to transition should also be banned or there should be a transgender category.
I think in the end some sort of transgender category will be necessary in order to be fair and allow people to compete on a level playing field.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
I take issue with this, if they genuinely believe they are a woman then who am I to say they aren't?
And if they genuinely believe they are a horse, who are you to say they aren't. And why should anyone stop them running in the 2:30 at Ascot.
Honestly......
Please don't respond in such a way, I just really don't see the problem. If they want to say their gender is female or a donkey, then why should I care? It doesn't impact me. If they want to be an idiot and run in a horse race then that's up to them.
I just don't see how this particular part impacts on you, can you explain?
People can say what they like - but should they have that recognised in law and force other people to go along with it?
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall. Even then not if mortgage interest rates rise for buyers too unless for the minority who are up front cash buyers
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
I think basically it's a very difficult and complicated issue - and I don't have the answers. And I am not sure anyone else does either. But what I do know is that using this point to point score is one of the worst things I see. Ultimately these are human beings, we should treat them with love and compassion.
I come from a position of inclusion being the default in sport, and where exclusion has to have very strong reasons. For me, safety is a really important factor, and I can well see why some trans athletes may be excluded from sports like rugby.
Fairness in sport is a curious concept, as all top athletes are essentially freaks of nature to one degree or another. It's not the fact they train harder than any of us; they have massive inbuilt advantages. Also, access to training facilities also grants massive advantages (which is one reason why smaller but richer countries such as the UK or Australia punch above our weight in the medal tables).
And we should not forget the wrongs that were done to Caster Semenya either.
Female categories in sports such as swimming are essentially a disability category. And a fairly uncontroversial category at that. I don't think saying "because lots of other things are unfair in sport we shouldn't care about maintaining fairness in this respect" is a particularly good argument.
Actually I do, because the unfairnesses are really, really arbitrary in many sports, and some could be easily fixed. Hence weight categories in boxing, or handicapping in other sports.
People can say what they like - but should they have that recognised in law and force other people to go along with it?
I'm really not sure. If you feel that people deny your existence as you see it and consistently get what you are wrong I can see why they feel there should be protections in place. But I can also equally see there might be some bad impacts by doing that.
But what I find very troubling is people who say I am a woman and somebody else says no you're not you're a man and I will call you such. To me that just seems like really bad manners - and is not somebody I would like to hang around with. Should that be protected in the law? Not sure.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
Happiness?
Contentment?
Serenity?
No
Happiness is much more profound. And rare
Contentment does not come close to capturing the sensual and physical well-being
Serenity is too passive and again non-physical
I need a word for the sensation of lying in a hammock at ///eliminator.gigantic.tables after fish curry and Tuskers for lunch, having just spent a week riding a chestnut stallion clean across the Masai Mara.
Just found you. Looks perfect
In a minute, after the gym, I’m going to get some sea bass in soy with sweet garlicky greens and sit at my regular table which is ///routine.chins.gifts
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
Just as there are those who would deny the existence of transgender individuals. It was appearing to flirt with that position which made JK Rowling a hate figure for some, I think.
The JK Rowling issue has of late passed me by to be honest. What is happening now?
As far as I could understand it, she was pro trans rights she just was very concerned about impinging on female rights. But then she seemed to go down a bit of a rabbit hole and sack up with some quite unsavoury characters, have I got any of that right?
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
I take issue with this, if they genuinely believe they are a woman then who am I to say they aren't?
What else is a matter of self identification? Race?
Gender which is what I refer, is a concept made up by society, frequently we've had more than two genders in history.
Classical Arabic, the language of the Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa salaam) and the Glorious Quran, has five additional words for genders beyond male and female: khasi, khuntha, mukhannath, mamsuh and hijrah.
Having different terms runs counter to the trans ideology whereby "transwomen are women" and you're bigoted if you differentiate.
People can say what they like - but should they have that recognised in law and force other people to go along with it?
I'm really not sure. If you feel that people deny your existence as you see it and consistently get what you are wrong I can see why they feel there should be protections in place. But I can also equally see there might be some bad impacts by doing that.
But what I find very troubling is people who say I am a woman and somebody else says no you're not you're a man and I will call you such. To me that just seems like really bad manners - and is not somebody I would like to hang around with. Should that be protected in the law? Not sure.
Tbh Horse, I'm not sure that it matters what people ask to be *called*, the issues we're discussing arise when deciding how they are *legally treated.*
Anyone can ask to be *called* by different pronouns and that's a question of manners. That's an individual conscience thing.
Being able to compete in different sports categories, or access single sex spaces, or where such people are housed in the penal system, is where thought needs to be done by the government and where a certain thought as to how conflicting rights are balanced comes into it.
At the moment, I am not totally convinced that everyone on either side in this increasingly polarised debate understands that difference. Some people really seem to think it's just up to the person concerned.
Just as there are those who would deny the existence of transgender individuals. It was appearing to flirt with that position which made JK Rowling a hate figure for some, I think.
The JK Rowling issue has of late passed me by to be honest. What is happening now?
As far as I could understand it, she was pro trans rights she just was very concerned about impinging on female rights. But then she seemed to go down a bit of a rabbit hole and sack up with some quite unsavoury characters, have I got any of that right?
La Rowling is beating the crap out of Sturgeon on Twitter. Is what’s happening
Ok, so there was an injury, but even so that's pretty poor from South Africa.
I actually assumed there had been a rain break.
Two injuries, de Kock and a bowler whose foot got in the way of a rocket. No penalty, apparently. Probably enough for England but as I said down thread Curran is far too good to have coming in at 8 these days.
People can say what they like - but should they have that recognised in law and force other people to go along with it?
I'm really not sure. If you feel that people deny your existence as you see it and consistently get what you are wrong I can see why they feel there should be protections in place. But I can also equally see there might be some bad impacts by doing that.
But what I find very troubling is people who say I am a woman and somebody else says no you're not you're a man and I will call you such. To me that just seems like really bad manners - and is not somebody I would like to hang around with. Should that be protected in the law? Not sure.
Tbh Horse, I'm not sure that it matters what people ask to be *called*, the issues we're discussing arise when deciding how they are *legally treated.*
Anyone can ask to be *called* by different pronouns and that's a question of manners. That's an individual conscience thing.
Being able to compete in different sports categories, or access single sex spaces, or where such people are housed in the penal system, is where thought needs to be done by the government and where a certain thought as to how conflicting rights are balanced comes into it.
At the moment, I am not totally convinced that everyone on either side in this increasingly polarised debate understands that difference. Some people really seem to think it's just up to the person concerned.
You say that but Malc above has taken issue with it. So I do not think it is wrong to say, that it exists.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
I think basically it's a very difficult and complicated issue - and I don't have the answers. And I am not sure anyone else does either. But what I do know is that using this point to point score is one of the worst things I see. Ultimately these are human beings, we should treat them with love and compassion.
I come from a position of inclusion being the default in sport, and where exclusion has to have very strong reasons. For me, safety is a really important factor, and I can well see why some trans athletes may be excluded from sports like rugby.
Fairness in sport is a curious concept, as all top athletes are essentially freaks of nature to one degree or another. It's not the fact they train harder than any of us; they have massive inbuilt advantages. Also, access to training facilities also grants massive advantages (which is one reason why smaller but richer countries such as the UK or Australia punch above our weight in the medal tables).
And we should not forget the wrongs that were done to Caster Semenya either.
Female categories in sports such as swimming are essentially a disability category. And a fairly uncontroversial category at that. I don't think saying "because lots of other things are unfair in sport we shouldn't care about maintaining fairness in this respect" is a particularly good argument.
Actually I do, because the unfairnesses are really, really arbitrary in many sports, and some could be easily fixed. Hence weight categories in boxing, or handicapping in other sports.
Completely off topic but I wonder why basketball has not tried height categories, would make it a far more accessible sport for half the population!
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
Dismissing legitimate concerns as “culture war” is what got Sturgeon into the mess she’s in. Or do you support men competing in women’s sports and sending male rapists with prison onset gender dysphoria to women’s prisons?
"Mess", I am sorry but deep down you know this will change absolutely nothing for her. I know you are desperate for her to do badly but let's be honest, she's going to win a majority of Scottish seats next time around and you know it
Dodging the question - do you support men competing in women’s sports and sending male rapists with prison onset gender dysphoria to women’s prisons?
If a trans person wants to compete in men's chess then I don't see the problem no
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
Presumably the girl - as part of her transition - took testosterone. Why wouldn't that be caught by anti-doping rules? A girl who took testosterone to make her stronger would I assume be banned. So a girl doing the same to transition should also be banned or there should be a transgender category.
I think in the end some sort of transgender category will be necessary in order to be fair and allow people to compete on a level playing field.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
Most people who compete in sports do so for the joy not for the winning. For the vast vast majority of us there is always someone of another gender who is better than us. We should not prevent people taking part in sports just because of perceived inequities for the 1% of elite competitors.
Most people who compete in sports do so for the joy not for the winning. For the vast vast majority of us there is always someone of another gender who is better than us. We should not prevent people taking part in sports just because of perceived inequities for the 1% of elite competitors.
That's true for amateurs. For professionals? I'm not so sure.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
If mortgage rates continue to rise buyers to live in can't afford them either even if house prices fall overall (unless the minority who are up front cash buyers with little or no mortgage), so they end up being left empty
Just as there are those who would deny the existence of transgender individuals. It was appearing to flirt with that position which made JK Rowling a hate figure for some, I think.
The JK Rowling issue has of late passed me by to be honest. What is happening now?
As far as I could understand it, she was pro trans rights she just was very concerned about impinging on female rights. But then she seemed to go down a bit of a rabbit hole and sack up with some quite unsavoury characters, have I got any of that right?
No idea what she’s up to now; this goes back some time.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
If mortgage rates continue to rise buyers to live in can't afford them either even if house prices fall overall (unless the minority who are up front cash buyers with little or no mortgage), so they end up being left empty
So landlords make a business decision to leave properties empty, unsold and untenanted?
This is the second UN Rapporteur to intervene in the Scottish gender debate - the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture follows the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls. It’s getting embarrassing for Sturgeon.
I expect you’d be equally dismissive if the comments were about a Tory policy…
It's not that, it's just that I know you come on here to have these debates to score political points when the Tories are doing badly, it's not about any kind of conviction.
As I said to you many times, if you want to go down this road you will lose. We saw this in Oz.
Dismissing legitimate concerns as “culture war” is what got Sturgeon into the mess she’s in. Or do you support men competing in women’s sports and sending male rapists with prison onset gender dysphoria to women’s prisons?
"Mess", I am sorry but deep down you know this will change absolutely nothing for her. I know you are desperate for her to do badly but let's be honest, she's going to win a majority of Scottish seats next time around and you know it
Dodging the question - do you support men competing in women’s sports and sending male rapists with prison onset gender dysphoria to women’s prisons?
If a trans person wants to compete in men's chess then I don't see the problem no
Don't be an utter twit. How about a trans identified male competing in female rugby, boxing, athletics, weightlifting, swimming, tennis?
Or does fairness in sport no longer matter?
But that is exactly what the 'you can't self identify' lobby had led to: Texas brought in a rule for high school wrestling that you had to compete as your birth gender,and a ftm trans boy won the girls wrestling two or three years in a row.
Presumably the girl - as part of her transition - took testosterone. Why wouldn't that be caught by anti-doping rules? A girl who took testosterone to make her stronger would I assume be banned. So a girl doing the same to transition should also be banned or there should be a transgender category.
I think in the end some sort of transgender category will be necessary in order to be fair and allow people to compete on a level playing field.
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
The alternative being a situation where biological women competing as women can't win any professional sport when there is a trans competitor taking part? Who do you choose to screw over?
I’m not an expert in this stuff at all, but my understanding is that a trans women who is taking hormones ends up with very similar muscle levels to women - athletes that transition from male to female report significant muscle loss.
So far at least we haven’t seen the kind of total domination of women’s competition by transitioned athletes that you’d expect if “women can’t win any professional sport” were the inevitable outcome of allowing transwomen who are taking hormones to compete.
Has a trans women even won an event at the elite level? I may have missed the news but I can’t recall anything like that: There was a US track athlete who won bronze a year or two ago IIRC?
Yep the weight lifter Laurel Hubbard both set a new Women's world record and won the Commonwealth Games in 2017. She also won 2 golds at the 2019 Pacific Games and the 2020 World Cup event. Rachel McKinnon won the UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championship in 2018. One of the reasons you are not seeing more is that current rules prevent them competing at that level in many sports. But there are also plenty of cases at, for example, state and college level in the US.
People can say what they like - but should they have that recognised in law and force other people to go along with it?
I'm really not sure. If you feel that people deny your existence as you see it and consistently get what you are wrong I can see why they feel there should be protections in place. But I can also equally see there might be some bad impacts by doing that.
But what I find very troubling is people who say I am a woman and somebody else says no you're not you're a man and I will call you such. To me that just seems like really bad manners - and is not somebody I would like to hang around with. Should that be protected in the law? Not sure.
I do think that is incredibly rude, but you can't use the law to force people to be good people.
My Dad, for example, consistently misspells my wife's name. If a business was doing this she would be able to use GDPR to force them to remedy the issue, but for my Dad, who is the sort of person who can't ever be told that he is wrong, what can you do?
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
"on holiday"?
Absolutely not. Because I am working hard as well. Indeed I am working better than normal because my mind is very clear because I am so destressed and Bangkokked (Thankyou @Nigelb).
And again this isn’t just me. My American friend, an academic with a book to write, says the same too. He is working BETTER out here
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
If mortgage rates continue to rise buyers to live in can't afford them either even if house prices fall overall (unless the minority who are up front cash buyers with little or no mortgage), so they end up being left empty
So landlords make a business decision to leave properties empty, unsold and untenanted?
Tories perhaps?
You can imagine Mogg would be stupid enough to, on the basis when he let it later his income would show exponential growth.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
If mortgage rates continue to rise buyers to live in can't afford them either even if house prices fall overall (unless the minority who are up front cash buyers with little or no mortgage), so they end up being left empty
So landlords make a business decision to leave properties empty, unsold and untenanted?
Tories perhaps?
With average rental income in London £2,234 a month most landlords even with rising costs won't leave them untenanted.
As I said they may not be able to sell them anyway due to rising mortgage rates
Sinn Féin 33% (+2) Fine Gael 21% (-3) Fianna Fáil 15% (nc) Social Democrats 6% (+2) Greens 4% (-1) Labour 4% (nc) People Before Profit/Solidarity 3% (nc) Aontú 2% (nc) others/independents 12% (+1)
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
A somewhat odd discussion today, but the science is clear. The reference limits depend on the units used, but there is no overlap between testosterone levels in the sexes - whether total, free or bioavailable. It is not like height or weight.
There are minor complications like in the rare varieties of intersex, but these are very rare. CAIS is for instance, around one birth in 50,000. Yes, in this case, the receptor deficit means there is little if any benefit from the androgen, despite the Y chromosome.
It varies with the sport, but having no differentiation usually means women can never rise to the top of most open sports.
You can still claim that Serena Williams is the greatest tennis player ever, but she still can't compete physically with men.
Physically, there's no doubt, but the mental qualitites are still an active source of debate, and where the overlap is much larger.
People can say what they like - but should they have that recognised in law and force other people to go along with it?
I'm really not sure. If you feel that people deny your existence as you see it and consistently get what you are wrong I can see why they feel there should be protections in place. But I can also equally see there might be some bad impacts by doing that.
But what I find very troubling is people who say I am a woman and somebody else says no you're not you're a man and I will call you such. To me that just seems like really bad manners - and is not somebody I would like to hang around with. Should that be protected in the law? Not sure.
I do think that is incredibly rude, but you can't use the law to force people to be good people.
My Dad, for example, consistently misspells my wife's name. If a business was doing this she would be able to use GDPR to force them to remedy the issue, but for my Dad, who is the sort of person who can't ever be told that he is wrong, what can you do?
Just as there are those who would deny the existence of transgender individuals. It was appearing to flirt with that position which made JK Rowling a hate figure for some, I think.
The JK Rowling issue has of late passed me by to be honest. What is happening now?
As far as I could understand it, she was pro trans rights she just was very concerned about impinging on female rights. But then she seemed to go down a bit of a rabbit hole and sack up with some quite unsavoury characters, have I got any of that right?
La Rowling is beating the crap out of Sturgeon on Twitter. Is what’s happening
To paraphrase JVS, how many votes as opposed to incel twitter followers will she get next election?
On a connected issue, JayKay stated unequivocally that Sturgeon would be personally to blame for any assaults committed by trans people if the GRA bill went through. There’s been a verifiable increase in crimes against transgender people, has she said who’s to blame for that?
Sinn Féin 33% (+2) Fine Gael 21% (-3) Fianna Fáil 15% (nc) Social Democrats 6% (+2) Greens 4% (-1) Labour 4% (nc) People Before Profit/Solidarity 3% (nc) Aontú 2% (nc) others/independents 12% (+1)
If I ever seriously have to consider the possibility of the phrase "Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg" then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go find the nearest tall building and see if I have any wings.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
If mortgage rates continue to rise buyers to live in can't afford them either even if house prices fall overall (unless the minority who are up front cash buyers with little or no mortgage), so they end up being left empty
So landlords make a business decision to leave properties empty, unsold and untenanted?
Tories perhaps?
With average rental income in London £2,234 a month most landlords even with rising costs won't leave them untenanted.
As I said they may not be able to sell them anyway due to rising mortgage rates
So the landlords leaving the rental sector are, err, going to rent them out?
If I ever seriously have to consider the possibility of the phrase "Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg" then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go find the nearest tall building and see if I have any wings.
As there is a not insignificant chance of that happening, I feel we need to extend you our friendship and support. If the dreaded event ever occurs, please DM me!
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
Sinn Féin 33% (+2) Fine Gael 21% (-3) Fianna Fáil 15% (nc) Social Democrats 6% (+2) Greens 4% (-1) Labour 4% (nc) People Before Profit/Solidarity 3% (nc) Aontú 2% (nc) others/independents 12% (+1)
If I ever seriously have to consider the possibility of the phrase "Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg" then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go find the nearest tall building and see if I have any wings.
… In recent days, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called Trump and suggested she would be announcing her decision to enter the presidential race soon, a conversation that a person familiar with it described as cordial.
But Haley may be only a modest challenge for Trump going forward. He also is on a collision course with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is widely expected to jump into the race.
On Saturday, Trump took his sharpest swings at DeSantis to date, accusing the governor of “trying to rewrite history” over his response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump said DeSantis, who has been openly skeptical about government efforts to vaccinate people against the virus, “promoted the vaccine as much as anyone.” He praised governors who did not close down their states, noting that DeSantis ordered the closure of beaches and business in some parts of the state…
The obvious interpretation - that he thinks she’s no threat at all - isn’t 100% certain, IMO. I think she has an outside chance.
No - trans identified males compete in the male category. Or if there is a transgender category in that one.
But you cannot have a situation where a woman who dopes up gets banned but a man with the same level of testosterone or even more in his body and the advantages of a male body gets to compete against women. How can that possibly be fair? If men and women compete in the same categories women's sport will largely be destroyed.
We have seen it in weightlifting, swimming and rowing that men who are not good enough to win prizes in the male category call themselves women and then win the women's prizes and exclude women who would otherwise compete.
I take issue with this, if they genuinely believe they are a woman then who am I to say they aren't?
What else is a matter of self identification? Race?
Gender which is what I refer, is a concept made up by society, frequently we've had more than two genders in history.
And what some people seem to want to do is deny the existence of biological sex. Ultimately, that's what this is all about.
I spoke to this above, a few nutters do but virtually nobody is saying there aren't two sexes. People seem to dishonestly conflate the two.
Just as there are those who would deny the existence of transgender individuals. It was appearing to flirt with that position which made JK Rowling a hate figure for some, I think.
I'd say rejecting gender identity entirely is more common than the other extreme of wanting to see it trump biological sex in all circumstances.
If I ever seriously have to consider the possibility of the phrase "Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg" then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go find the nearest tall building and see if I have any wings.
If I ever seriously have to consider the possibility of the phrase "Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg" then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go find the nearest tall building and see if I have any wings.
red bull can help
I don't think it's that poisonou...oh, you mean with the wings thing.
If I ever seriously have to consider the possibility of the phrase "Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg" then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go find the nearest tall building and see if I have any wings.
As there is a not insignificant chance of that happening, I feel we need to extend you our friendship and support. If the dreaded event ever occurs, please DM me!
You'll probably hear my howling screams on the wind!
Sinn Féin 33% (+2) Fine Gael 21% (-3) Fianna Fáil 15% (nc) Social Democrats 6% (+2) Greens 4% (-1) Labour 4% (nc) People Before Profit/Solidarity 3% (nc) Aontú 2% (nc) others/independents 12% (+1)
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
No. The question was what happened to properties that were coming off the rental market. None of the options listed is affected by whether or not first time buyers are involved.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
Who still can't buy if mortgage rates stay high unless mainly cash buyers.
It would be second or third time buyers moving up the ladder who are the buyers primarily
Sinn Féin 33% (+2) Fine Gael 21% (-3) Fianna Fáil 15% (nc) Social Democrats 6% (+2) Greens 4% (-1) Labour 4% (nc) People Before Profit/Solidarity 3% (nc) Aontú 2% (nc) others/independents 12% (+1)
(Red C/Business Post; 25 January; 1,004)
Or in other words FG/FF 36%, SF 33%.
FG/FF now effectively nearly one party of the centre right now in all but name with SF the main party of the Irish left now
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
No. The question was what happened to properties that were coming off the rental market. None of the options listed is affected by whether or not first time buyers are involved.
A first time buyer is clearly 4 - sold to a tenant, not 5 - sold as a second home? How can a first time buyer be a second home owner, very confused?
People can say what they like - but should they have that recognised in law and force other people to go along with it?
I'm really not sure. If you feel that people deny your existence as you see it and consistently get what you are wrong I can see why they feel there should be protections in place. But I can also equally see there might be some bad impacts by doing that.
But what I find very troubling is people who say I am a woman and somebody else says no you're not you're a man and I will call you such. To me that just seems like really bad manners - and is not somebody I would like to hang around with. Should that be protected in the law? Not sure.
I do think that is incredibly rude, but you can't use the law to force people to be good people.
My Dad, for example, consistently misspells my wife's name. If a business was doing this she would be able to use GDPR to force them to remedy the issue, but for my Dad, who is the sort of person who can't ever be told that he is wrong, what can you do?
Let me guess: he votes Tory.
He's a lifelong Guardian-reading Labour voter. Took great delight in delivering leaflets for them when his second wife was a paper Lib Dem council candidate.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
Who still can't buy if mortgage rates stay high unless mainly cash buyers.
It would be second or third time buyers moving up the ladder who are the buyers primarily
You know what I am going to ask next right? What happens to the homes that they move out of......
Sinn Féin 33% (+2) Fine Gael 21% (-3) Fianna Fáil 15% (nc) Social Democrats 6% (+2) Greens 4% (-1) Labour 4% (nc) People Before Profit/Solidarity 3% (nc) Aontú 2% (nc) others/independents 12% (+1)
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
Who still can't buy if mortgage rates stay high unless mainly cash buyers.
It would be second or third time buyers moving up the ladder who are the buyers primarily
You know what I am going to ask next right? What happens to the homes that they move out of......
Bought by those already on the ladder too mainly until mortgage interest rates fall, or the minority of first time buyers who are cash buyers
Sinn Féin 33% (+2) Fine Gael 21% (-3) Fianna Fáil 15% (nc) Social Democrats 6% (+2) Greens 4% (-1) Labour 4% (nc) People Before Profit/Solidarity 3% (nc) Aontú 2% (nc) others/independents 12% (+1)
I am informed that my article on the Intermarium is to be published later this afternoon (Sunday 29Jan2023). It is the third in the Ukraine War series, thus:
PART 2: "Ukraine War Ii: Russian Invasion of Britain 2022", was a propaganda piece meant to exhort support for Ukraine by setting the war in Britain. Unpublished due to events (Truss and the death of the Queen) it was part of a backstage discussion forum - off-off-PB, if you will. I did maps.
PART 3: "The Intermarium", or whatever @TSE decides to call it - "Ukraine War III: The Intermarium" would be good, btw - is an explanation of the historical background going back to the 16th century. Again the short version will be published on PB, the longer version will form part of a discussion forum in about a fortnight, provisionally 7pm Feb 7th 2023. @Nigelb and @MattW and @Sean_F have received advance copies as they provided links and tweets to read.
I should point out that my article adopts the @Dura_Ace style guide, which is to say it uses a heck of a lot of tech jargon. This is not just to be pretentious - that's more a side benefit, tbh - but because a lot of the concepts were complex. Apologies in advance.
I hope you like it.
I will try to respond this afternoon but I am busy this afternoon and will not be able to deal at length with any comments/criticism/questions that may occur. Instead I will note them and reply in a longer way in the later form.
Most people who compete in sports do so for the joy not for the winning. For the vast vast majority of us there is always someone of another gender who is better than us. We should not prevent people taking part in sports just because of perceived inequities for the 1% of elite competitors.
That's true for amateurs. For professionals? I'm not so sure.
For the competitive amateurs that isn’t true, either, very often.
In rowing, for example, to be competitive you need to sacrifice several hours a day, continuously, over years. The only people who do that are driven to a level that is beyond any level of compromise and “that’s all right then”
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
Who still can't buy if mortgage rates stay high unless mainly cash buyers.
It would be second or third time buyers moving up the ladder who are the buyers primarily
You know what I am going to ask next right? What happens to the homes that they move out of......
Bought by those already on the ladder too mainly until mortgage interest rates fall, or the minority of first time buyers who are cash buyers
If cash buyers are the minority of first time buyers, who are the majority of first time buyers? And why can't you bring yourself to say that those first time buyers are buying the homes of landlords leaving the sector?
I am informed that my article on the Intermarium is to be published later this afternoon (Sunday 29Jan2023). It is the third in the Ukraine War series, thus:
PART 2: "Ukraine War Ii: Russian Invasion of Britain 2022", was a propaganda piece meant to exhort support for Ukraine by setting the war in Britain. Unpublished due to events (Truss and the death of the Queen) it was part of a backstage discussion forum - off-off-PB, if you will. I did maps.
PART 3: "The Intermarium", or whatever @TSE decides to call it - "Ukraine War III: The Intermarium" would be good, btw - is an explanation of the historical background going back to the 16th century. Again the short version will be published on PB, the longer version will form part of a discussion forum in about a fortnight, provisionally 7pm Feb 7th 2023. @Nigelb and @MattW and @Sean_F have received advance copies as they provided links and tweets to read.
I should point out that my article adopts the @Dura_Ace style guide, which is to say it uses a heck of a lot of tech jargon. This is not just to be pretentious - that's more a side benefit, tbh - but because a lot of the concepts were complex. Apologies in advance.
I hope you like it.
I will try to respond this afternoon but I am busy this afternoon and will not be able to deal at length with any comments/criticism/questions that may occur. Instead I will note them and reply in a longer way in the later form.
Re; the earlier discussion on whether Ed Miliband was more ideological than Starmer, I would also say that about 10 years ago Ed M. was the only major person in British politics talking about issues such as our absurdly lax attitude to the ownership of strategic industries and intellectual capital, compared even to the US, or the unfortunate short-termism, and attitides to long-term investment , that result from over-financialisation of our economy.
Ten years on, and these faults have become so glaringly obvious, particularly in the light of Brexit not making them any better, that even right-of-centre posters like Max regularly raise them on here now. Starmer also understands a lot more of this than Blair did, as these ideas and critiques head to the mainstream.
Re; the earlier discussion on whether Ed Miliband was more ideological than Starmer, I would also say that about 10 years ago Ed M. was the only major person in British politics talking about issues such as our absurdly lax attitude to the ownership of strategic industries and intellectual capital, compared even to the US, or the unfortunate short-termism, and attitides to long-term investment , that result from over-financialisation of our economy.
Ten years on, and these faults are so glaringly obvious, particularly in the light of Brexit not making them any better, that even right-of-centre posters like Max on here regularly raise them nowadays. Starmer also understands a lot more of this than Blair did, because these ideas and concerns are becoming mainstream by comparison.
Ed Miliband was the soft left candidate in the 2010 Labour leadership election v the centrist David Miliband.
Starmer by contrast was the centrist Labour leadership candidate in the 2020 Labour leadership election v the leftwing Rebecca Long Bailey
Re; the earlier discussion on whether Ed Miliband was more ideological than Starmer, I would also say that about 10 years ago Ed M. was the only major person in British politics talking about issues such as our absurdly lax attitude to the ownership of strategic industries and intellectual capital, compared even to the US, or the unfortunate short-termism, and attitides to long-term investment , that result from over-financialisation of our economy.
Ten years on, and these faults are so glaringly obvious, particularly in the light of Brexit not making them any better, that even right-of-centre posters like Max on here regularly raise them now. Starmer also understands a lot more of this than Blair did, as these ideas become mainstream.
The issue with Ed wasn't his policies or thinking but presentational. At the time the public wanted a Blair clone like Cameron, Clegg or brother David. Ed reminded us more of Brown, especially with the (unfairly?) perceived backstabbing of David.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
Who still can't buy if mortgage rates stay high unless mainly cash buyers.
It would be second or third time buyers moving up the ladder who are the buyers primarily
You know what I am going to ask next right? What happens to the homes that they move out of......
Bought by those already on the ladder too mainly until mortgage interest rates fall, or the minority of first time buyers who are cash buyers
If cash buyers are the minority of first time buyers, who are the majority of first time buyers? And why can't you bring yourself to say that those first time buyers are buying the homes of landlords leaving the sector?
They aren't as they often can't afford the big repayments on mortgage loans now required after soaring mortgage interest rates even with falling house prices.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
No. The question was what happened to properties that were coming off the rental market. None of the options listed is affected by whether or not first time buyers are involved.
A first time buyer is clearly 4 - sold to a tenant, not 5 - sold as a second home? How can a first time buyer be a second home owner, very confused?
We are talking at cross purposes. I understood sold as a second home to refer to the status of the seller not the buyer.
Why is there not an English word for “a complete sense of emotional, physical and sensual wellbeing”
Because that’s how I feel in Bangkok in January. Nor am I alone. I have an American friend out here at the moment and he told me he feels exactly the same. And also lacks a word to describe it
"on holiday"?
Absolutely not. Because I am working hard as well. Indeed I am working better than normal because my mind is very clear because I am so destressed and Bangkokked (Thankyou @Nigelb).
And again this isn’t just me. My American friend, an academic with a book to write, says the same too. He is working BETTER out here
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
Who still can't buy if mortgage rates stay high unless mainly cash buyers.
It would be second or third time buyers moving up the ladder who are the buyers primarily
You know what I am going to ask next right? What happens to the homes that they move out of......
Bought by those already on the ladder too mainly until mortgage interest rates fall, or the minority of first time buyers who are cash buyers
If cash buyers are the minority of first time buyers, who are the majority of first time buyers? And why can't you bring yourself to say that those first time buyers are buying the homes of landlords leaving the sector?
They aren't as they often can't afford the big repayments on mortgage loans now required after soaring mortgage interest rates even with falling house prices.
Cash buyers don't have that problem
So are you now claiming cash buyers are the majority, not the minority, of first time buyers?
Or that people who can't afford to buy are actually the majority of first time buyers???
What happens in Ukraine war if Trump gets back in? Does that save Putin? 😟 All Putin needs to do now one nil up is time waste until day Trump is sworn in, and the referee blows his whistle?
I think we can predict massive pressure on next US election from foreign interference 🤮
I must say I always thought the thing about his brother was the biggest load of nonsense going. The tabloids wanted an angle, and they found it.
Why should he have naturally deferred to his brother, primogeniture-style ? The fact that they apparently still have a good relationship would also seem to give the lie to this. I also highly doubt that David would have been the spectacular relative success the Labour Right always claimed ; highly gifted, but I think much too identified with the earlier Blair and Brown years, both in style and substance , for many of the actual voters, many of whom were looking for something new or different in the 2010s.
Re; the earlier discussion on whether Ed Miliband was more ideological than Starmer, I would also say that about 10 years ago Ed M. was the only major person in British politics talking about issues such as our absurdly lax attitude to the ownership of strategic industries and intellectual capital, compared even to the US, or the unfortunate short-termism, and attitides to long-term investment , that result from over-financialisation of our economy.
Ten years on, and these faults are so glaringly obvious, particularly in the light of Brexit not making them any better, that even right-of-centre posters like Max on here regularly raise them now. Starmer also understands a lot more of this than Blair did, as these ideas become mainstream.
The issue with Ed wasn't his policies or thinking but presentational. At the time the public wanted a Blair clone like Cameron, Clegg or brother David. Ed reminded us more of Brown, especially with the (unfairly?) perceived backstabbing of David.
Remember that thng that was said about Boris- he'll be fine as the frontman, becuase he knows how to surround himself with smart advisers? It turned out not to be true in his Premiership, because he surrounded himself with fruitcakes and thugs. But it's not a bad model. The PM needs to be able to make and explain quickish judgements across the board, not get tangled in the thickets of a single issue. EdM makes much more sense near the leader, thinking things through, than he does as the leader himself. The same might be turning out to be true of Sunak.
The nearest EdM equivalent on the Conservative side right now (in terms of getting to grips with knotty issues) is probably Gove, which says quite a lot about the pickle the British right are in. And below him... who is there who is having proper workable ideas about what a Conservative Party should be doing? Preferably ones that have a chance of appealing to the electorate?
So now we're heading into a situation where trans people cannot compete in any professional sport?
I think basically it's a very difficult and complicated issue - and I don't have the answers. And I am not sure anyone else does either. But what I do know is that using this point to point score is one of the worst things I see. Ultimately these are human beings, we should treat them with love and compassion.
I come from a position of inclusion being the default in sport, and where exclusion has to have very strong reasons. For me, safety is a really important factor, and I can well see why some trans athletes may be excluded from sports like rugby.
Fairness in sport is a curious concept, as all top athletes are essentially freaks of nature to one degree or another. It's not the fact they train harder than any of us; they have massive inbuilt advantages. Also, access to training facilities also grants massive advantages (which is one reason why smaller but richer countries such as the UK or Australia punch above our weight in the medal tables).
And we should not forget the wrongs that were done to Caster Semenya either.
Female categories in sports such as swimming are essentially a disability category. And a fairly uncontroversial category at that. I don't think saying "because lots of other things are unfair in sport we shouldn't care about maintaining fairness in this respect" is a particularly good argument.
Actually I do, because the unfairnesses are really, really arbitrary in many sports, and some could be easily fixed. Hence weight categories in boxing, or handicapping in other sports.
You mean like giving athletes from poorer countries a head start? Not sure there's much demand for that.
You might be interested in this article about basketball:
I don't like basketball, but it's interesting to see how many fans of the sport bemoan the increased prominence of the three-point shot. As a non-fan, I'm thinking it's a good thing because it reduces the importance of height, but fans of the game think the skill of opening teams up for the slam dunk is what it's all about and I can understand that.
A tap in at the end of a great team move in soccer is better than a speculative shot from 30 yards that flies into the top corner.
It certainly matches personal experience (although I know that is a dubious basis for any claim) in that several friends and relatives who used to rent out flats or single properties have now sold them specifically because of the changes in regulation.
Yup - the government specifically raised costs for small private landlords. Chiefly on the mortgage interest tax allowance thing.
Increasing costs reduces the number of participants in a market? I’m shocked, shocked i tell you…
Not just the costs. There have been significant changes in terms and regulation for landlords which, whilst sometimes well meant, have basically ended up driving very large numbers of people out of the market entirely.
Landlords selling up doesn't improve home ownership levels unless house prices fall significantly and even then not if mortgage interest rates rise significantly for buyers too (unless for the minority who are largely cash buyers)
Amazed people think that the size of the UK rental sector could halve in 3 years!
What was found was that the average number of properties available to rent at a given time per branch, had halved, which is of course completely different and far less alarming. That is not to minimise the increased difficulty of finding rental properties at the moment and the competition for them.
A positive part of the reason for this is the average length of tenancy increasing from 3.9 years in 2016/17 to 4.3 years by 2021. Another minor reason will be an increase in people renting via online only estate agencies and social media.
The increased costs on landlords give increased benefits to tenants, hence, on average them staying longer. Landlords leaving the sector and selling moves people into home ownership.
The big negative reason is airbnb and similar style taking properties out of the number of secure homes.
Landlords leaving the sector doesn't lead to more home ownership unless house prices also fall.
What happens to these houses when the landlords sell?
1. Left Empty 2. Demolished 3. Sold to another landlord 4. Sold to a tenant 5. Sold as a second home 6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
5 is the most common. Thus removing homes from the rental market.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
The article I quoted said that 94% of properties taken off the rental market by their owners were sold with less than half of those then returning to thecrental market. Basic maths means that if those numbers are correct as a minimum 47% of the properties coming off the rental market fall under the 5th option.
You are forgetting first time buyers!
Who still can't buy if mortgage rates stay high unless mainly cash buyers.
It would be second or third time buyers moving up the ladder who are the buyers primarily
You know what I am going to ask next right? What happens to the homes that they move out of......
Bought by those already on the ladder too mainly until mortgage interest rates fall, or the minority of first time buyers who are cash buyers
If cash buyers are the minority of first time buyers, who are the majority of first time buyers? And why can't you bring yourself to say that those first time buyers are buying the homes of landlords leaving the sector?
They aren't as they often can't afford the big repayments on mortgage loans now required after soaring mortgage interest rates even with falling house prices.
Cash buyers don't have that problem
So are you now claiming cash buyers are the majority, not the minority, of first time buyers?
Or that people who can't afford to buy are actually the majority of first time buyers???
Rising borrowing costs after the Ukraine war and mini Budget have reduced the number of first time buyers
Comments
It was appearing to flirt with that position which made JK Rowling a hate figure for some, I think.
Two points you raise: It being a big issue, and it being a big threat.
Politically this is not a big issue. Here in the North East the big issues are jobs, investment, crumbling services due to budget cuts, drugs and pockets of hard deprivation. And of course independence. People are not prioritising this issue over the ones that actually affect their lives.
And a big threat? Again, every attack, threat of attack or even fear of attack by men. Every one bar a literal handful of cases is a man dressed as a man. I think we should go after the real issue not the fantasy, however much you dream of it wounding your political enemy...
We can say that biologically people are mostly divided into two sexes, male and female, and this has some consequences for society because, on average, thanks to testosterone, most men will be larger, stronger and more aggressive than women.
But beyond that, what is there to say? People are people and vary widely. Is it necessary to have different categories of people on the basis of the ideas they have in their head, and the ways in which they behave? And is there any sense in which these categories need to be legally recognised?
Plus, I would only do it if I could afford to buy several - at least five, possibly more - and make it a full time job. Which I think would take a capital of around £700,000.
As I said: the default should be for inclusion, not exclusion. As with much in life (and this is something feminists have fought for for years).
Ok, so there was an injury, but even so that's pretty poor from South Africa.
I actually assumed there had been a rain break.
But what I find very troubling is people who say I am a woman and somebody else says no you're not you're a man and I will call you such. To me that just seems like really bad manners - and is not somebody I would like to hang around with. Should that be protected in the law? Not sure.
In a minute, after the gym, I’m going to get some sea bass in soy with sweet garlicky greens and sit at my regular table which is ///routine.chins.gifts
1. Left Empty
2. Demolished
3. Sold to another landlord
4. Sold to a tenant
5. Sold as a second home
6. Changed to airbnb
I suggest 3 & 4 are the overwhelming majority, 1, 5 & 6 should all be (more) heavily taxed and 2 is extremely rare.
As far as I could understand it, she was pro trans rights she just was very concerned about impinging on female rights. But then she seemed to go down a bit of a rabbit hole and sack up with some quite unsavoury characters, have I got any of that right?
Anyone can ask to be *called* by different pronouns and that's a question of manners. That's an individual conscience thing.
Being able to compete in different sports categories, or access single sex spaces, or where such people are housed in the penal system, is where thought needs to be done by the government and where a certain thought as to how conflicting rights are balanced comes into it.
At the moment, I am not totally convinced that everyone on either side in this increasingly polarised debate understands that difference. Some people really seem to think it's just up to the person concerned.
Probably enough for England but as I said down thread Curran is far too good to have coming in at 8 these days.
either even if house prices fall overall (unless the minority who are up front cash buyers with little or no mortgage), so they end up being left empty
Not an enemy you want on social media
Tories perhaps?
My Dad, for example, consistently misspells my wife's name. If a business was doing this she would be able to use GDPR to force them to remedy the issue, but for my Dad, who is the sort of person who can't ever be told that he is wrong, what can you do?
As I said they may not be able to sell them anyway due to rising mortgage rates
Sinn Féin 33% (+2)
Fine Gael 21% (-3)
Fianna Fáil 15% (nc)
Social Democrats 6% (+2)
Greens 4% (-1)
Labour 4% (nc)
People Before Profit/Solidarity 3% (nc)
Aontú 2% (nc)
others/independents 12% (+1)
(Red C/Business Post; 25 January; 1,004)
There are minor complications like in the rare varieties of intersex, but these are very rare. CAIS is for instance, around one birth in 50,000. Yes, in this case, the receptor deficit means there is little if any benefit from the androgen, despite the Y chromosome.
It varies with the sport, but having no differentiation usually means women can never rise to the top of most open sports.
You can still claim that Serena Williams is the greatest tennis player ever, but she still can't compete physically with men.
Physically, there's no doubt, but the mental qualitites are still an active source of debate, and where the overlap is much larger.
On a connected issue, JayKay stated unequivocally that Sturgeon would be personally to blame for any assaults committed by trans people if the GRA bill went through. There’s been a verifiable increase in crimes against transgender people, has she said who’s to blame for that?
Sounds extremely unlikely.
23% of purchases are subject to additional stamp duty as being second homes, with the significant majority of those understood to be rental properties.
Tories. Sleaze without end.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/28/trump-2024-campaign-00080043
… In recent days, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called Trump and suggested she would be announcing her decision to enter the presidential race soon, a conversation that a person familiar with it described as cordial.
But Haley may be only a modest challenge for Trump going forward. He also is on a collision course with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is widely expected to jump into the race.
On Saturday, Trump took his sharpest swings at DeSantis to date, accusing the governor of “trying to rewrite history” over his response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump said DeSantis, who has been openly skeptical about government efforts to vaccinate people against the virus, “promoted the vaccine as much as anyone.” He praised governors who did not close down their states, noting that DeSantis ordered the closure of beaches and business in some parts of the state…
The obvious interpretation - that he thinks she’s no threat at all - isn’t 100% certain, IMO.
I think she has an outside chance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687675/Army-spied-lockdown-critics-Sceptics-including-Peter-Hitchens-suspected-watched.html
Little chance of a government without some involvement of "colourful" Independents.
One of the world’s leading windsurfers has quit the English south coast for Spain after describing training near her home like “surfing in a sewer”.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jan/26/surfing-in-a-sewer-british-windsurfer-sarah-jackson-quits-for-spain-over-water-pollution
It's passing virtually without comment on here, too.
It's baked in now.
Iran: What appears may have been a bunker-buster strike against an underground weapons factory in Iran was followed by a significant earthquake in the area
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1619530210042593280
Seems unlikely to be directly connected, as it was 5.9 magnitude.
But reports of various other strikes on military facilities.
Now it’s just same old same old.
Most people have just had enough of them, and there’s not much to discuss about it.
It would be second or third time buyers moving up the ladder who are the buyers primarily
FG/FF now effectively nearly one party of the centre right now in all but name with SF the main party of the Irish left now
People are weird.
- PART 1: "Why Ukraine was particularly vulnerable" (see https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/02/why-ukraine-was-particularly-vulnerable/ ). This was an explanation of the geopolitical reasons why Putin is prosecuting this war. The shorther version was published on PB, a longer version was later discussed backstage.
- PART 2: "Ukraine War Ii: Russian Invasion of Britain 2022", was a propaganda piece meant to exhort support for Ukraine by setting the war in Britain. Unpublished due to events (Truss and the death of the Queen) it was part of a backstage discussion forum - off-off-PB, if you will. I did maps.
- PART 3: "The Intermarium", or whatever @TSE decides to call it - "Ukraine War III: The Intermarium" would be good, btw - is an explanation of the historical background going back to the 16th century. Again the short version will be published on PB, the longer version will form part of a discussion forum in about a fortnight, provisionally 7pm Feb 7th 2023. @Nigelb and @MattW and @Sean_F have received advance copies as they provided links and tweets to read.
I should point out that my article adopts the @Dura_Ace style guide, which is to say it uses a heck of a lot of tech jargon. This is not just to be pretentious - that's more a side benefit, tbhI hope you like it.
I will try to respond this afternoon but I am busy this afternoon and will not be able to deal at length with any comments/criticism/questions that may occur. Instead I will note them and reply in a longer way in the later form.
In rowing, for example, to be competitive you need to sacrifice several hours a day, continuously, over years. The only people who do that are driven to a level that is beyond any level of compromise and “that’s all right then”
Ten years on, and these faults have become so glaringly obvious, particularly in the light of Brexit not making them any better, that even right-of-centre posters like Max regularly raise them on here now. Starmer also understands a lot more of this than Blair did, as these ideas and critiques head to the mainstream.
https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1619611972206755843
Starmer by contrast was the centrist Labour leadership candidate in the 2020 Labour leadership election v the leftwing Rebecca Long Bailey
Cash buyers don't have that problem
Or that people who can't afford to buy are actually the majority of first time buyers???
I think we can predict massive pressure on next US election from foreign interference 🤮
Why should he have naturally deferred to his brother, primogeniture-style ? The fact that they apparently still have a good relationship would also seem to give the lie to this. I also highly doubt that David would have been the spectacular relative success the Labour Right always claimed ; highly gifted, but I think much too identified with the earlier Blair and Brown years, both in style and substance , for many of the actual voters, many of whom were looking for something new or different in the 2010s.
The nearest EdM equivalent on the Conservative side right now (in terms of getting to grips with knotty issues) is probably Gove, which says quite a lot about the pickle the British right are in. And below him... who is there who is having proper workable ideas about what a Conservative Party should be doing? Preferably ones that have a chance of appealing to the electorate?
Perhaps with a hint of this version by Scary Pockets
https://youtu.be/fiShsfvbFUA
How are you Leon?
Mmmboppy, bro, Mmmmmmmmmboppy
The number of m’s is a precise measure of the actual personal mmmboppiness being experienced
You might be interested in this article about basketball:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/13/loved-loathed-and-everywhere-how-the-three-pointer-came-to-dominate-the-nba
I don't like basketball, but it's interesting to see how many fans of the sport bemoan the increased prominence of the three-point shot. As a non-fan, I'm thinking it's a good thing because it reduces the importance of height, but fans of the game think the skill of opening teams up for the slam dunk is what it's all about and I can understand that.
A tap in at the end of a great team move in soccer is better than a speculative shot from 30 yards that flies into the top corner.
https://moneyage.co.uk/2022-housing-market-sees-fall-in-total-first-time-buyers.php