I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
No it will for sure if it persists - yield and price are inversely correlated - although yes it could be mitigated to an extent and for a while by other factors eg political manipulation.
As much as a nice big crash in property prices would suit many of us, there's no point in waiting for a correction - or even for prices simply to stagnate - in the medium-to-long term. Interest rates are going to head back down towards nil as soon as inflationary pressures ease, and the other mechanisms that I've identified - along with the Bank of Mum & Dad, topped up with inheritances - will easily bridge the gap.
Again, if a commodity is as desirable as property, and the supply of that commodity grows ever more scarce in relation to the total number of people who are competing to get their hands on it, then prices are always likely to keep on rising. Folk will give up having kids, going on holiday, eating out, even eating properly full stop, to get their hands on their own home, out of desperation. Whatever the consequences of struggling to service a huge mortgage, those of being condemned to a whole lifetime of paying extortionate rents are worse.
Well you exaggerate balefully as you tend to - but I have sympathy with the thrust.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
I've been thinking of buying a boat.
I've always fancied one of those small wooden sailing boats found in the fens.
1) you’ve never been on a boat in winter. 2) you’ve never tried maintaining a wooden boat.
Can't a man dream. A fiberglass motor 'yacht' and obligatory club membership hasn't the same appeal.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
I've been thinking of buying a boat.
I've always fancied one of those small wooden sailing boats found in the fens.
1) you’ve never been on a boat in winter. 2) you’ve never tried maintaining a wooden boat.
Can't a man dream. A fiberglass motor 'yacht' and obligatory club membership hasn't the same appeal.
A sailing friend of mine in Torquay assures me that there are only ever 2 good days on a boat. The day you buy it, and the day you sell it.
Now he crews for other people that he meets via the Cruising Association. There are always owners desperate for competent crew.
I was thinking more of a narrow boat.
Check out this guy’s Youtube channel. He lived on a canal boat for three years. Very informative.
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
I’m happy to share his views and history from friends of his and his family if you’d like me to but I feel like you’ll just deny what I say? Is it worth it?
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
I've been thinking of buying a boat.
I've always fancied one of those small wooden sailing boats found in the fens.
1) you’ve never been on a boat in winter. 2) you’ve never tried maintaining a wooden boat.
Can't a man dream. A fiberglass motor 'yacht' and obligatory club membership hasn't the same appeal.
A sailing friend of mine in Torquay assures me that there are only ever 2 good days on a boat. The day you buy it, and the day you sell it.
Now he crews for other people that he meets via the Cruising Association. There are always owners desperate for competent crew.
If it flies, floats, or f…., then you’re better off renting it!
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
I would be interested to hear what you think Sunak's sincere political beliefs are.
(I do think he has some, but I come from a different political viewpoint).
Thatcherite. His parents had their own business, worked hard, saved, sent him to a good school and he succeeded off the back of it. So he will believe in sound money, fiscal responsibility, competitive tax etc. and have a love for the country and its values.
His political career has been one of safe seats and administration, however, not fighting for your life out there on the streets which, whilst I don't doubt he can do a bit of with his "Rishi's Dishes" charisma, he needs to rapidly rediscover and show that he's more than just a competent nightwatchman.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
I've been thinking of buying a boat.
I've always fancied one of those small wooden sailing boats found in the fens.
1) you’ve never been on a boat in winter. 2) you’ve never tried maintaining a wooden boat.
Can't a man dream. A fiberglass motor 'yacht' and obligatory club membership hasn't the same appeal.
A sailing friend of mine in Torquay assures me that there are only ever 2 good days on a boat. The day you buy it, and the day you sell it.
Now he crews for other people that he meets via the Cruising Association. There are always owners desperate for competent crew.
I was thinking more of a narrow boat.
Check out this guy’s Youtube channel. He lived on a canal boat for three years. Very informative.
A narrow boat is a long narrow hole in the water into which you throw money. As opposed to a yacht which is a wider but shorter hole into which you throw money.
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
I’m happy to share his views and history from friends of his and his family if you’d like me to but I feel like you’ll just deny what I say? Is it worth it?
Hang on, I thought you were a Conservative from a Conservative family who's only recently warmed to him?
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
I’m happy to share his views and history from friends of his and his family if you’d like me to but I feel like you’ll just deny what I say? Is it worth it?
Hang on, I thought you were a Conservative from a Conservative family who's only recently warmed to him?
I am from a Conservative family, my Mum and Dad have voted Tory all of their lives.
Doesn't mean I am what they are or indeed that is what my bubble is. I live in London.
So far the only people that seem to think Rishi has charisma are those that vote Tory anyway.
Amongst my bubble he's seen as out of touch and a bit weird.
Funny Conservative bubble you live in, as claimed.
I didn't say it was a Conservative bubble, ever. I said I voted Tory in the past, which is true. So unless you want to claim I'm a liar I suggest you sit down there.
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
If you’re right, then at least he believes in something. No one has a clue what Sunak stands for. He was just next in line just replaced the catastrophic republican you lot foisted on us.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
I've been thinking of buying a boat.
I've always fancied one of those small wooden sailing boats found in the fens.
1) you’ve never been on a boat in winter. 2) you’ve never tried maintaining a wooden boat.
Can't a man dream. A fiberglass motor 'yacht' and obligatory club membership hasn't the same appeal.
A sailing friend of mine in Torquay assures me that there are only ever 2 good days on a boat. The day you buy it, and the day you sell it.
Now he crews for other people that he meets via the Cruising Association. There are always owners desperate for competent crew.
I was thinking more of a narrow boat.
Check out this guy’s Youtube channel. He lived on a canal boat for three years. Very informative.
A narrow boat is a long narrow hole in the water into which you throw money. As opposed to a yacht which is a wider but shorter hole into which you throw money.
Mind, the yacht is a deeper hole, too. The keel (or, in Essex, perhaps a leeboard), and all that.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
I would be interested to hear what you think Sunak's sincere political beliefs are.
(I do think he has some, but I come from a different political viewpoint).
Thatcherite. His parents had their own business, worked hard, saved, sent him to a good school and he succeeded off the back of it. So he will believe in sound money, fiscal responsibility, competitive tax etc. and have a love for the country and its values.
His political career has been one of safe seats and administration, however, not fighting for your life out there on the streets which, whilst I don't doubt he can do a bit of with his "Rishi's Dishes" charisma, he needs to rapidly rediscover and show that he's more than just a competent nightwatchman.
Interesting. Quite a few of these apply to Starmer too (I suspect you don't believe this however). Nevertheless the two men have taken very different political journeys.
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
Isn't the key word there "used". Used meant that in the past (some time before he was made a QC in 2002) he often proposed abolition of the monarchy. Liz Truss also used to propose the abolition of the monarchy when she was a student politician. People are allowed to change their minds on things.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
Hang-on, I assume you accept that "Phoney Tony" didn't in fact turn out to be a closet marxist.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
No it will for sure if it persists - yield and price are inversely correlated - although yes it could be mitigated to an extent and for a while by other factors eg political manipulation.
As much as a nice big crash in property prices would suit many of us, there's no point in waiting for a correction - or even for prices simply to stagnate - in the medium-to-long term. Interest rates are going to head back down towards nil as soon as inflationary pressures ease, and the other mechanisms that I've identified - along with the Bank of Mum & Dad, topped up with inheritances - will easily bridge the gap.
Again, if a commodity is as desirable as property, and the supply of that commodity grows ever more scarce in relation to the total number of people who are competing to get their hands on it, then prices are always likely to keep on rising. Folk will give up having kids, going on holiday, eating out, even eating properly full stop, to get their hands on their own home, out of desperation. Whatever the consequences of struggling to service a huge mortgage, those of being condemned to a whole lifetime of paying extortionate rents are worse.
Well you exaggerate balefully as you tend to - but I have sympathy with the thrust.
I'm reminded of the local nickname in the 1960s for a major Wimpey development in my native burgh: Spam City. Because many of the denizens were economising on food in order to have their own homes.
When I was working with a pollster in 2022, one Biden voter in a Georgia focus group blamed Biden for Dobbs because she thought an entirely new Supreme Court is appointed every time the presidency changes hands, like Cabinet secretaries. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4396992/#Comment_4396992
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
You question Starmer's sincerity at almost every turn which is your right. Others may choose to question Sunak's sincerity.
The bulk of the electorate have yet to really get to know Starmer and discover what kind of Labour Party he now leads and how it will govern. There are and will be serious questions to ask about the policy programme and how it will be paid for.
There are also serious questions to be asked about the Government's record since both 2019 and 2010 and that's something Sunak will have to answer as well as trying to articulate what a Conservative Government will look like from 2024 onwards.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
I've been thinking of buying a boat.
I've always fancied one of those small wooden sailing boats found in the fens.
1) you’ve never been on a boat in winter. 2) you’ve never tried maintaining a wooden boat.
Can't a man dream. A fiberglass motor 'yacht' and obligatory club membership hasn't the same appeal.
A sailing friend of mine in Torquay assures me that there are only ever 2 good days on a boat. The day you buy it, and the day you sell it.
Now he crews for other people that he meets via the Cruising Association. There are always owners desperate for competent crew.
I used to go sailing in a Dragon, though spent more than one winter Saturday sanding and sanding and varnishing and anti-fouling. Lovely thing, though, with natural wood upperworks.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
Hang-on, I assume you accept that "Phoney Tony" didn't in fact turn out to be a closet marxist.
But you think Starmer might?
TBF I don't think Blair was in any sense a socialist. He just happened to be leader of the Labour Party. One Nation Tory was probably his real political home. The then Conservatives might have been more successful if they had reflected on why such people driven out of the Party preferred to vote Labour, than to call them phonies.
Starmer is an actual socialist, I believe, of a social democratic bent.
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
If you’re right, then at least he believes in something. No one has a clue what Sunak stands for. He was just next in line just replaced the catastrophic republican you lot foisted on us.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
Hang-on, I assume you accept that "Phoney Tony" didn't in fact turn out to be a closet marxist.
But you think Starmer might?
TBF I don't think Blair was in any sense a socialist. He just happened to be leader of the Labour Party. One Nation Tory was probably his real political home. The then Conservatives might have been more successful if they had reflected on why such people driven out of the Party preferred to vote Labour, than to call them phonies.
Starmer is an actual socialist, I believe, of a social democratic bent.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
Hang-on, I assume you accept that "Phoney Tony" didn't in fact turn out to be a closet marxist.
But you think Starmer might?
TBF I don't think Blair was in any sense a socialist. He just happened to be leader of the Labour Party. One Nation Tory was probably his real political home. The then Conservatives might have been more successful if they had reflected on why such people driven out of the Party preferred to vote Labour, than to call them phonies.
Starmer is an actual socialist, I believe, of a social democratic bent.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
Hang-on, I assume you accept that "Phoney Tony" didn't in fact turn out to be a closet marxist.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
Hang-on, I assume you accept that "Phoney Tony" didn't in fact turn out to be a closet marxist.
But you think Starmer might?
TBF I don't think Blair was in any sense a socialist. He just happened to be leader of the Labour Party. One Nation Tory was probably his real political home. The then Conservatives might have been more successful if they had reflected on why such people driven out of the Party preferred to vote Labour, than to call them phonies.
Starmer is an actual socialist, I believe, of a social democratic bent.
Blair's greatest triumph was to make the Labour Party he led a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left which was attractive to a large number of former Conservative supporters who either directly voted Labour or abstained because while not being willing to vote Labour were quite relaxed about a Labour Government led by Blair.
Blair's victories ion 1997 and 2001 were convincing and indeed overwhelming - had there been no Iraq War, I'm of the view Blair would have won a third landslide and then retired after a decade. He'd have had the retirement Thatcher would have had in early 1989 but she had "to go on and on".
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
Isn't the key word there "used". Used meant that in the past (some time before he was made a QC in 2002) he often proposed abolition of the monarchy. Liz Truss also used to propose the abolition of the monarchy when she was a student politician. People are allowed to change their minds on things.
Yes, but I don't think he has - he just detected it would be an obstacle to his career to continue.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
Hang-on, I assume you accept that "Phoney Tony" didn't in fact turn out to be a closet marxist.
But you think Starmer might?
TBF I don't think Blair was in any sense a socialist. He just happened to be leader of the Labour Party. One Nation Tory was probably his real political home. The then Conservatives might have been more successful if they had reflected on why such people driven out of the Party preferred to vote Labour, than to call them phonies.
Starmer is an actual socialist, I believe, of a social democratic bent.
Blair's greatest triumph was to make the Labour Party he led a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left which was attractive to a large number of former Conservative supporters who either directly voted Labour or abstained because while not being willing to vote Labour were quite relaxed about a Labour Government led by Blair.
Blair's victories ion 1997 and 2001 were convincing and indeed overwhelming - had there been no Iraq War, I'm of the view Blair would have won a third landslide and then retired after a decade. He'd have had the retirement Thatcher would have had in early 1989 but she had "to go on and on".
Not sure. Iraq damaged the Labour coalition with leeching to the Liberal Democrats but most of the losses in 2005 were Conservative marginals and immigration was starting to become an issue there.
That said, losses probably would have been reduced and he still held much of Middle England in 2005.
The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrest of six protesters in London before the coronation.
Leader of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among six people detained by officers, who seized items that they believed could be used as lock-on devices.
However, the Met now says an investigation has been unable to prove intent to disrupt the event.
"This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken," the Met said in a statement.
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route."…
… Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has backed the Met over arrests amid concerns they were cracking down on dissent on Saturday at the behest of politicians.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
You question Starmer's sincerity at almost every turn which is your right. Others may choose to question Sunak's sincerity.
The bulk of the electorate have yet to really get to know Starmer and discover what kind of Labour Party he now leads and how it will govern. There are and will be serious questions to ask about the policy programme and how it will be paid for.
There are also serious questions to be asked about the Government's record since both 2019 and 2010 and that's something Sunak will have to answer as well as trying to articulate what a Conservative Government will look like from 2024 onwards.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
Hang-on, I assume you accept that "Phoney Tony" didn't in fact turn out to be a closet marxist.
What's the point of Rishi Sunak if he can't even rig the Premier League to ensure Saints' survival. Victor Orban got his village team from the county league to European football.
The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrest of six protesters in London before the coronation.
Leader of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among six people detained by officers, who seized items that they believed could be used as lock-on devices.
However, the Met now says an investigation has been unable to prove intent to disrupt the event.
"This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken," the Met said in a statement.
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route."…
… Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has backed the Met over arrests amid concerns they were cracking down on dissent on Saturday at the behest of politicians.
I'll say it again. You have a problem with Sunak and I'm not convinced it is all about politics.
I can only restate what I said the other day. So long as the Met is responsible for the personal security of our most senior politicians the organisation is unlikely to be reformed.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
This is 2023 latest data
And
From Planradar.com (2021-2):
This data from plan radar seems to significantly underestimate the cost of building flats. Flats are normally very expensive to build due to the cost of regulatory compliance, particularly flats above about 4 storeys.
In my experience, the most reliable estimate of build costs is the BCIS data, that is what is used for viability appraisals, but it is subscription only. I think cost of building generally does comes back at around 2-3k per sqm, certainly in the south east. The BCIS data is based on reports from chartered surveyors on what actual projects cost to build, it is different to 'quotes' from builders, which are typically subject to upward adjustment as projects go on.
If you want to throw up affordable housing quickly on green fields then your solution is to build 40sqm modular buildings at around £60k per unit - this would be like the modern equivalent of a post war prefab. It would be ok for about 20 years and then they would require replacing. Sort of like a trailer park.
So far the only people that seem to think Rishi has charisma are those that vote Tory anyway.
Amongst my bubble he's seen as out of touch and a bit weird.
I wouldn't use the word, charisma, but I think Sunak is polite and personable, which counts in my book.
His sincerest political belief, and a problem for him I think, is that government should ensure billionaires of which he happens to be one, can keep all their wealth and that government should not be in the business of redistributing wealth. As most people are not billionaires, while Sunak has no understanding of, and even less interest in, how the other 99.9% live, he does come across as somewhat out of touch.
Just emerged from a religious service to discover Everton won 5-1 at Brighton. The power of prayer?
My awesome predictive powers not the power of prayer.
Everton are safe.
Hopefully your predictive powers continue to be awesome. City next. Then safe Wolves and Bournemouth. Hopefully 4 points will be enough. Should be to hold off Leicester. Hopefully enough to get ahead of Forest. Big Sam masterminding Leeds to pip us would be an irony though. Wouldn't put it past him.
The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrest of six protesters in London before the coronation.
Leader of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among six people detained by officers, who seized items that they believed could be used as lock-on devices.
However, the Met now says an investigation has been unable to prove intent to disrupt the event.
"This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken," the Met said in a statement.
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route."…
… Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has backed the Met over arrests amid concerns they were cracking down on dissent on Saturday at the behest of politicians.
I'll say it again. You have a problem with Sunak and I'm not convinced it is all about politics.
I can only restate what I said the other day. So long as the Met is responsible for the personal security of our most senior politicians the organisation is unlikely to be reformed.
I'll say it again, you're incredibly stupid. I mean you don't know the difference between Hindi and Hindu.
Next you'll be calling me a anti-Gavins because I said rude things about Sir Gavin Williamson.
The David Attenborough 1950s colour footage on BBC4 is amazing. Apparently everyone had forgotten it had been filmed in colour for about 60 years, and then it was discovered in a vault somewhere.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
This is 2023 latest data
And
From Planradar.com (2021-2):
This data from plan radar seems to significantly underestimate the cost of building flats. Flats are normally very expensive to build due to the cost of regulatory compliance, particularly flats above about 4 storeys.
In my experience, the most reliable estimate of build costs is the BCIS data, that is what is used for viability appraisals, but it is subscription only. I think cost of building generally does comes back at around 2-3k per sqm, certainly in the south east. The BCIS data is based on reports from chartered surveyors on what actual projects cost to build, it is different to 'quotes' from builders, which are typically subject to upward adjustment as projects go on.
If you want to throw up affordable housing quickly on green fields then your solution is to build 40sqm modular buildings at around £60k per unit - this would be like the modern equivalent of a post war prefab. It would be ok for about 20 years and then they would require replacing. Sort of like a trailer park.
I don't understand why factory-built modular units using Structured Insulated Panels, properly clad and roofed, would need replacing in 20 years.
Just emerged from a religious service to discover Everton won 5-1 at Brighton. The power of prayer?
My awesome predictive powers not the power of prayer.
Everton are safe.
Hopefully your predictive powers continue to be awesome. City next. Then safe Wolves and Bournemouth. Hopefully 4 points will be enough. Should be to hold off Leicester. Hopefully enough to get ahead of Forest. Big Sam masterminding Leeds to pip us would be an irony though. Wouldn't put it past him.
I said the other week, you'll take points off City on Sunday.
Being the filling in between the Real Madrid sandwich will be an advantage for you.
Just emerged from a religious service to discover Everton won 5-1 at Brighton. The power of prayer?
My awesome predictive powers not the power of prayer.
Everton are safe.
Hopefully your predictive powers continue to be awesome. City next. Then safe Wolves and Bournemouth. Hopefully 4 points will be enough. Should be to hold off Leicester. Hopefully enough to get ahead of Forest. Big Sam masterminding Leeds to pip us would be an irony though. Wouldn't put it past him.
It'd be just fab if you could shock City. One more twist in the title race.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
Hang-on, I assume you accept that "Phoney Tony" didn't in fact turn out to be a closet marxist.
But you think Starmer might?
TBF I don't think Blair was in any sense a socialist. He just happened to be leader of the Labour Party. One Nation Tory was probably his real political home. The then Conservatives might have been more successful if they had reflected on why such people driven out of the Party preferred to vote Labour, than to call them phonies.
Starmer is an actual socialist, I believe, of a social democratic bent.
Blair's greatest triumph was to make the Labour Party he led a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left which was attractive to a large number of former Conservative supporters who either directly voted Labour or abstained because while not being willing to vote Labour were quite relaxed about a Labour Government led by Blair.
Blair's victories ion 1997 and 2001 were convincing and indeed overwhelming - had there been no Iraq War, I'm of the view Blair would have won a third landslide and then retired after a decade. He'd have had the retirement Thatcher would have had in early 1989 but she had "to go on and on".
Not sure. Iraq damaged the Labour coalition with leeching to the Liberal Democrats but most of the losses in 2005 were Conservative marginals and immigration was starting to become an issue there.
That said, losses probably would have been reduced and he still held much of Middle England in 2005.
I'm not suggesting a 160-seat majority like 97 or 01 but without 9/11 and the Iraq war I just don't see the leakage to the LDs or to Respect. The Conservative vote share went up less than 1% - Labour fell 5.5% and the LDs went up just under 4%. If we assume "Iraq" caused most of the Lab-LD shift, a higher Labour vote share would have reduced Conservative gains.
A third term majority of around 100 - that's what Thatcher managed in 87 and Blair might have done the same in 05.
The caveat is the events of 9/11 and everything that followed drew Labour away from the domestic programme. The 83-87 Thatcher Government was the most radical since Attlee - I'm not sure what Blair would have done without the distractions from 2001 onwards. Labour might have lost more ground had it tried to implement a radical domestic agenda in its second term - to be honest, though, I don't think it had any such radical ideas (Clinton didn't in his second term).
Just emerged from a religious service to discover Everton won 5-1 at Brighton. The power of prayer?
My awesome predictive powers not the power of prayer.
Everton are safe.
Hopefully your predictive powers continue to be awesome. City next. Then safe Wolves and Bournemouth. Hopefully 4 points will be enough. Should be to hold off Leicester. Hopefully enough to get ahead of Forest. Big Sam masterminding Leeds to pip us would be an irony though. Wouldn't put it past him.
It was an awful display from Leicester. I can't see us getting much from our last 3 games
Just emerged from a religious service to discover Everton won 5-1 at Brighton. The power of prayer?
My awesome predictive powers not the power of prayer.
Everton are safe.
Hopefully your predictive powers continue to be awesome. City next. Then safe Wolves and Bournemouth. Hopefully 4 points will be enough. Should be to hold off Leicester. Hopefully enough to get ahead of Forest. Big Sam masterminding Leeds to pip us would be an irony though. Wouldn't put it past him.
It was an awful display from Leicester. I can't see us getting much from our last 3 games
I'm hoping-but-not-believing you might get something off Liverpool.
I'm so glad that Casino_Royale is here with their power of mind-reading. Otherwise PB would have no clue as to SKS's secret agenda.
He's prioritizing winning but I don't think that makes him a phony. It'd be crazy to lose and facilitate more Tory rule just because of some unfair notion carried over from the Corbyn days that Labour in some way 'dislike' Britain.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
This is 2023 latest data
And
From Planradar.com (2021-2):
This data from plan radar seems to significantly underestimate the cost of building flats. Flats are normally very expensive to build due to the cost of regulatory compliance, particularly flats above about 4 storeys.
In my experience, the most reliable estimate of build costs is the BCIS data, that is what is used for viability appraisals, but it is subscription only. I think cost of building generally does comes back at around 2-3k per sqm, certainly in the south east. The BCIS data is based on reports from chartered surveyors on what actual projects cost to build, it is different to 'quotes' from builders, which are typically subject to upward adjustment as projects go on.
If you want to throw up affordable housing quickly on green fields then your solution is to build 40sqm modular buildings at around £60k per unit - this would be like the modern equivalent of a post war prefab. It would be ok for about 20 years and then they would require replacing. Sort of like a trailer park.
I don't understand why factory-built modular units using Structured Insulated Panels, properly clad and roofed, would need replacing in 20 years.
They do not look as if they have a future according to this report in the Guardian
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
I'm trying to work out whose hatred is more irrationally over the top:
On @Casino_Royale 's substantive points it's true Sunak has no vision for the future. But nor does Starmer. So I don't think that's the fundamental weakness.
Sunak's weakness in a matchup is Starmer has expelled his lunatics while Sunak has brought them into the cabinet.
I think Starmer's government, should he take over next year, will be more different from Sunak's than many people think. Depending on your political views it's quite possible to prefer Sunak, while thinking either man is acceptable for the post, just as Johnson, Truss and Corbyn weren't
I think Starmer's government is unpredictable. It might govern in a soft-left way, but it might also be rather radical. Either way it's going to have to raise a lot of extra tax to do what it wants to do.
My view is that SKS is essentially a classic north London left-liberal, with views very much like @kinabalu, and is essentially doing whatever he has to do to get elected with the monarchism and patriotism because he's professional enough to take advice. But, it's a carefully choreographed performance - not a sincere one.
This was the argument some Tories tried to use about Blair - they even tried to call him "Phoney Tony" in the run-up to 1997. Made not a jot of difference of course.
Yes, and this is the retort we hear time and time again when it comes up, to dismiss it.
I don't find it very convincing.
You question Starmer's sincerity at almost every turn which is your right. Others may choose to question Sunak's sincerity.
The bulk of the electorate have yet to really get to know Starmer and discover what kind of Labour Party he now leads and how it will govern. There are and will be serious questions to ask about the policy programme and how it will be paid for.
There are also serious questions to be asked about the Government's record since both 2019 and 2010 and that's something Sunak will have to answer as well as trying to articulate what a Conservative Government will look like from 2024 onwards.
A very sensible post
He will spend most of his time trashing Starmer Rayner and co. and quite right too.....
Just seeing the EFC game stats. 22 % possession. 5 shots to Brighton's 18. One corner to Brighton's 18. 5 goals to 1. We're we lucky? Or was this a feast of rope a dope counter attack? And if either answer, where the heck has that come from? Added to which. Dwight McNeil man of the match. Eh?
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
This is 2023 latest data
And
From Planradar.com (2021-2):
I better tell the guys who made that quote they are wrong.
Plus they did a similar job at that price for someone I know a couple of streets over.
I wonder if your numbers are being pushed up by including basements (insanely expensive) ?
Just seeing the EFC game stats. 22 % possession. 5 shots to Brighton's 18. One corner to Brighton's 18. 5 goals to 1. We're we lucky? Or was this a feast of rope a dope counter attack? And if either answer, where the heck has that come from? Added to which. Dwight McNeil man of the match. Eh?
It was an amazing Everton performance and not at all lucky
Well deserved and Brighton had no answer to being hit on the brake
You should be safe now and rest happy in your power of prayer
I'm always cautious with Labour. Maybe its shy Tories, but Labour often don't do as well as you might expect, or hope, given the circumstances. I mean:
1945 - Landslide - well done. 1950 - Turn a landslide into a majority of 2(!) 1951 - Lose and out of power for 13 years. 1964 - Do so well they manage a majority of only 2, after thirteen years of the Conservatives and up against Lord Home. 1966 - A good result! 1970 - everyone expected them to win, but then Gordon Banks didn't play, so they lost! 1974 (both) - Hung parliament and a wafer thin majority. 1979 - It was believed only six months earlier that Callaghan would manage to win, but he lost and Labour went to 18 years in the wilderness. 1992 - We're alright? No we're not. Expected to win, and lost instead. 1997 - 20 point lead.... no, actually only 12%. The seat totals and bias in the system just resulted in a massive majority. Major still got a bigger % of the vote than Foot, Brown and Miliband did. 2010 - Hung parliament, but not really in the game were they? 2015 - Five years of the hated coalition and they still lose. 2017 - They win by being sixty seats short. 2019 - Another hammering on par with Michael Foot's woeful performance.
Just emerged from a religious service to discover Everton won 5-1 at Brighton. The power of prayer?
My awesome predictive powers not the power of prayer.
Everton are safe.
Hopefully your predictive powers continue to be awesome. City next. Then safe Wolves and Bournemouth. Hopefully 4 points will be enough. Should be to hold off Leicester. Hopefully enough to get ahead of Forest. Big Sam masterminding Leeds to pip us would be an irony though. Wouldn't put it past him.
I said the other week, you'll take points off City on Sunday.
Being the filling in between the Real Madrid sandwich will be an advantage for you.
Arsenal winning the League > Everton getting relegated?
It's ironic that the prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines has just made anti-monarchy comments when his country was one of the most pro-monarchy countries in the recent polling undertaken by Lord Ashcroft. It showed that people in the country would vote 63% to 34% in favour of the current system.
I'm always cautious with Labour. Maybe its shy Tories, but Labour often don't do as well as you might expect, or hope, given the circumstances. I mean:
1945 - Landslide - well done. 1950 - Turn a landslide into a majority of 2(!) 1951 - Lose and out of power for 13 years. 1964 - Do so well they manage a majority of only 2, after thirteen years of the Conservatives and up against Lord Home. 1966 - A good result! 1970 - everyone expected them to win, but then Gordon Banks didn't play, so they lost! 1974 (both) - Hung parliament and a wafer thin majority. 1979 - It was believed only six months earlier that Callaghan would manage to win, but he lost and Labour went to 18 years in the wilderness. 1992 - We're alright? No we're not. Expected to win, and lost instead. 1997 - 20 point lead.... no, actually only 12%. The seat totals and bias in the system just resulted in a massive majority. Major still got a bigger % of the vote than Foot, Brown and Miliband did. 2010 - Hung parliament, but not really in the game were they? 2015 - Five years of the hated coalition and they still lose. 2017 - They win by being sixty seats short. 2019 - Another hammering on par with Michael Foot's woeful performance.
All of which is true. How many of those had the Tories more trusted on the economy, though? For me, that's the difference this time. Also. You can't count 2017 as being in anyway a surprise on the downside. Just go back and read the comments on the night on here if you are in any doubt.
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
If you’re right, then at least he believes in something. No one has a clue what Sunak stands for. He was just next in line just replaced the catastrophic republican you lot foisted on us.
If he was “just next in line” surely that makes him a monarchist?
Cameron in 2015, Starmer now. I think the time and context are more important than the leader, unless the leader is particularly charismatic or objectionable (which neither Starmer nor Sunak are).
That's certainly true. Could Cameron have appealed to the Red Wall like Boris post Brexit? No. Could Boris have swept up former LDs in 2015? I doubt it.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
This is 2023 latest data
And
From Planradar.com (2021-2):
This data from plan radar seems to significantly underestimate the cost of building flats. Flats are normally very expensive to build due to the cost of regulatory compliance, particularly flats above about 4 storeys.
In my experience, the most reliable estimate of build costs is the BCIS data, that is what is used for viability appraisals, but it is subscription only. I think cost of building generally does comes back at around 2-3k per sqm, certainly in the south east. The BCIS data is based on reports from chartered surveyors on what actual projects cost to build, it is different to 'quotes' from builders, which are typically subject to upward adjustment as projects go on.
If you want to throw up affordable housing quickly on green fields then your solution is to build 40sqm modular buildings at around £60k per unit - this would be like the modern equivalent of a post war prefab. It would be ok for about 20 years and then they would require replacing. Sort of like a trailer park.
I don't understand why factory-built modular units using Structured Insulated Panels, properly clad and roofed, would need replacing in 20 years.
There are whole estates of 50-60 year old timber chalets, built as holiday cottages, that are being used as permanent homes without problems. Minimal work is required - just re felt the roof when it starts leaking, repaint it every so often, etc.
It brings in to question what value is really being added by modern building regulations.
So far the only people that seem to think Rishi has charisma are those that vote Tory anyway.
Amongst my bubble he's seen as out of touch and a bit weird.
People used to say he had charisma and good presentation. I think he's a bit unctuous, but perhaps it's a small doses thing, as I know several people who say they like him (they only around 50% say they will still vote Tory).
Sunaks enthusiasm on steroids every time he’s interviewed is getting on my txts! And if I hear stop the boats again as part of that list I’m going to lose it !
It's ironic that the prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines has just made anti-monarchy comments when his country was one of the most pro-monarchy countries in the recent polling undertaken by Lord Ashcroft. It showed that people in the country would vote 63% to 34% in favour of the current system.
It may be quite relevant whether their constitution permits them to make a change with or without a referendum in that case. Of course, people might react differently in a referendum, not least since I imagine few politicos would campaign for retention, but the requirement does seem to have been a hold up in places like Jamaica (now planned for 2025 apparently), where a vote would probably be won.
Some real surprises in that Ashcroft list though, to be honest, if you've seen it. Given how apathetic it has been to date I'm surprised Canada would be so actively hostile.
Sunaks enthusiasm on steroids every time he’s interviewed is getting on my txts! And if I hear stop the boats again as part of that list I’m going to lose it !
What's the point of Rishi Sunak if he can't even rig the Premier League to ensure Saints' survival. Victor Orban got his village team from the county league to European football.
Perhaps, in their hour of need the Saints need their legend. George Weah’s cousin.
Sunaks enthusiasm on steroids every time he’s interviewed is getting on my txts! And if I hear stop the boats again as part of that list I’m going to lose it !
Around 520 days then
If I didn’t know I’d be thinking Sunak was on something ! Have his advisers said this hyper enthusiasm is a good look because it ain’t !
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
I've been thinking of buying a boat.
I've always fancied one of those small wooden sailing boats found in the fens.
1) you’ve never been on a boat in winter. 2) you’ve never tried maintaining a wooden boat.
Can't a man dream. A fiberglass motor 'yacht' and obligatory club membership hasn't the same appeal.
A sailing friend of mine in Torquay assures me that there are only ever 2 good days on a boat. The day you buy it, and the day you sell it.
Now he crews for other people that he meets via the Cruising Association. There are always owners desperate for competent crew.
I was thinking more of a narrow boat.
Check out this guy’s Youtube channel. He lived on a canal boat for three years. Very informative.
A narrow boat is a long narrow hole in the water into which you throw money. As opposed to a yacht which is a wider but shorter hole into which you throw money.
True, but yachts are also significantly more likely to be seized from a Russian oligarch than a narrowboat, so chances of accidental seizure are lower.
The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrest of six protesters in London before the coronation.
Leader of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among six people detained by officers, who seized items that they believed could be used as lock-on devices.
However, the Met now says an investigation has been unable to prove intent to disrupt the event.
"This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken," the Met said in a statement.
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route."…
… Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has backed the Met over arrests amid concerns they were cracking down on dissent on Saturday at the behest of politicians.
Sunaks enthusiasm on steroids every time he’s interviewed is getting on my txts! And if I hear stop the boats again as part of that list I’m going to lose it !
Around 520 days then
If I didn’t know I’d be thinking Sunak was on something ! Have his advisers said this hyper enthusiasm is a good look because it ain’t !
Sunaks enthusiasm on steroids every time he’s interviewed is getting on my txts! And if I hear stop the boats again as part of that list I’m going to lose it !
Around 520 days then
If I didn’t know I’d be thinking Sunak was on something ! Have his advisers said this hyper enthusiasm is a good look because it ain’t !
I assume it's to contrast Starmer being perceived as dull and, perhaps, lacking in energy, but I don't think people always object to dull, and Starmer is more normal than offputtingly boring.
Anyways. I suppose our drab snoozefest of a 5-1 being the lowest scoring game means we'll be last on MOTD?
What? No MOTD? With 21 goals?
Surely they could grab the nearest ex footballers they could find, put them in the studio and have quickly do a supercut of all the goals, super quick?
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
This is 2023 latest data
And
From Planradar.com (2021-2):
This data from plan radar seems to significantly underestimate the cost of building flats. Flats are normally very expensive to build due to the cost of regulatory compliance, particularly flats above about 4 storeys.
In my experience, the most reliable estimate of build costs is the BCIS data, that is what is used for viability appraisals, but it is subscription only. I think cost of building generally does comes back at around 2-3k per sqm, certainly in the south east. The BCIS data is based on reports from chartered surveyors on what actual projects cost to build, it is different to 'quotes' from builders, which are typically subject to upward adjustment as projects go on.
If you want to throw up affordable housing quickly on green fields then your solution is to build 40sqm modular buildings at around £60k per unit - this would be like the modern equivalent of a post war prefab. It would be ok for about 20 years and then they would require replacing. Sort of like a trailer park.
I don't understand why factory-built modular units using Structured Insulated Panels, properly clad and roofed, would need replacing in 20 years.
There are whole estates of 50-60 year old timber chalets, built as holiday cottages, that are being used as permanent homes without problems. Minimal work is required - just re felt the roof when it starts leaking, repaint it every so often, etc.
It brings in to question what value is really being added by modern building regulations.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
This is 2023 latest data
And
From Planradar.com (2021-2):
I better tell the guys who made that quote they are wrong.
Plus they did a similar job at that price for someone I know a couple of streets over.
I wonder if your numbers are being pushed up by including basements (insanely expensive) ?
@Malmesbury You haven't said how big the house is, nor what is included in the quote; the terms and conditions, contract etc.
The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrest of six protesters in London before the coronation.
Leader of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among six people detained by officers, who seized items that they believed could be used as lock-on devices.
However, the Met now says an investigation has been unable to prove intent to disrupt the event.
"This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken," the Met said in a statement.
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route."…
… Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has backed the Met over arrests amid concerns they were cracking down on dissent on Saturday at the behest of politicians.
Note they had contacted the Met in advance of the protest to clear it. In this case the Met have no excuse for their behaviour.
Just imagine what will unleashed on the UK if the Tories get another 5 year term. They are a clear and present danger to UK democracy and need to be removed before the UK becomes unrecognizable .
Comments
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
https://youtube.com/c/CruisingTheCutUK/videos
"I got made a Queen's Counsel which is odd, since I often used to propose abolition of the monarchy."
https://youtu.be/ooK9_4GLUD4
Odd. Why would he find it "odd" unless he Still found it a bit odd, because he still finds the monarchy a bit odd? Because he 'often' - not once- used to propose its abolition? Not once, 'often', which is the act of a determined and sincere campaigner who believes what he's doing is right.
Now, this will all be vociferously denied, because he and his supporters are desperate for him and Labour to get elected, but there's no doubt in my mind his views are still there - he was well into his 40s when this clip was recorded - despite the heavy papering over and he shares them with his peer group, and they are very deep rooted.
His political career has been one of safe seats and administration, however, not fighting for your life out there on the streets which, whilst I don't doubt he can do a bit of with his "Rishi's Dishes" charisma, he needs to rapidly rediscover and show that he's more than just a competent nightwatchman.
Amongst my bubble he's seen as out of touch and a bit weird.
I don't find it very convincing.
Doesn't mean I am what they are or indeed that is what my bubble is. I live in London.
KS - I used to think we should oppose the Monarchy. Bad.
As I said, the people that like Sunak vote Tory anyway, funny that. Doesn't appeal to people like me who voted Tory under Cameron
But you think Starmer might?
When I was working with a pollster in 2022, one Biden voter in a Georgia focus group blamed Biden for Dobbs because she thought an entirely new Supreme Court is appointed every time the presidency changes hands, like Cabinet secretaries.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4396992/#Comment_4396992
The bulk of the electorate have yet to really get to know Starmer and discover what kind of Labour Party he now leads and how it will govern. There are and will be serious questions to ask about the policy programme and how it will be paid for.
There are also serious questions to be asked about the Government's record since both 2019 and 2010 and that's something Sunak will have to answer as well as trying to articulate what a Conservative Government will look like from 2024 onwards.
And
From Planradar.com (2021-2):
Starmer is an actual socialist, I believe, of a social democratic bent.
Blair's victories ion 1997 and 2001 were convincing and indeed overwhelming - had there been no Iraq War, I'm of the view Blair would have won a third landslide and then retired after a decade. He'd have had the retirement Thatcher would have had in early 1989 but she had "to go on and on".
Funnily enough I don't think Truss had either.
That said, losses probably would have been reduced and he still held much of Middle England in 2005.
The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrest of six protesters in London before the coronation.
Leader of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among six people detained by officers, who seized items that they believed could be used as lock-on devices.
However, the Met now says an investigation has been unable to prove intent to disrupt the event.
"This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken," the Met said in a statement.
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route."…
… Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has backed the Met over arrests amid concerns they were cracking down on dissent on Saturday at the behest of politicians.
https://news.sky.com/story/metropolitan-police-regrets-arrest-of-anti-monarch-group-leader-and-five-others-before-coronation-12876663
The power of prayer?
Everton are safe.
I wonder if that's some sort of record?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4065174/amp/Boxing-Day-1963-saw-66-goals-10-games-including-Manchester-United-losing-6-1-Burnley-Fulham-scoring-10.html
I can only restate what I said the other day. So long as the Met is responsible for the personal security of our most senior politicians the organisation is unlikely to be reformed.
In my experience, the most reliable estimate of build costs is the BCIS data, that is what is used for viability appraisals, but it is subscription only. I think cost of building generally does comes back at around 2-3k per sqm, certainly in the south east. The BCIS data is based on reports from chartered surveyors on what actual projects cost to build, it is different to 'quotes' from builders, which are typically subject to upward adjustment as projects go on.
If you want to throw up affordable housing quickly on green fields then your solution is to build 40sqm modular buildings at around £60k per unit - this would be like the modern equivalent of a post war prefab. It would be ok for about 20 years and then they would require replacing. Sort of like a trailer park.
But VAR says no
His sincerest political belief, and a problem for him I think, is that government should ensure billionaires of which he happens to be one, can keep all their wealth and that government should not be in the business of redistributing wealth. As most people are not billionaires, while Sunak has no understanding of, and even less interest in, how the other 99.9% live, he does come across as somewhat out of touch.
City next. Then safe Wolves and Bournemouth.
Hopefully 4 points will be enough. Should be to hold off Leicester. Hopefully enough to get ahead of Forest. Big Sam masterminding Leeds to pip us would be an irony though. Wouldn't put it past him.
66 goals in 10 games is 6.6 goals per game.
We've got 20 goals in 3 games, so 6.66 (recurring) per game.
OH! Twenty one goals! 7 goals per game on average.....
Next you'll be calling me a anti-Gavins because I said rude things about Sir Gavin Williamson.
Anyway, what happened to your 4-3 post?
Being the filling in between the Real Madrid sandwich will be an advantage for you.
A third term majority of around 100 - that's what Thatcher managed in 87 and Blair might have done the same in 05.
The caveat is the events of 9/11 and everything that followed drew Labour away from the domestic programme. The 83-87 Thatcher Government was the most radical since Attlee - I'm not sure what Blair would have done without the distractions from 2001 onwards. Labour might have lost more ground had it tried to implement a radical domestic agenda in its second term - to be honest, though, I don't think it had any such radical ideas (Clinton didn't in his second term).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/04/legal-general-halts-new-production-at-modular-homes-factory-near-leeds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
22 % possession. 5 shots to Brighton's 18.
One corner to Brighton's 18.
5 goals to 1.
We're we lucky? Or was this a feast of rope a dope counter attack?
And if either answer, where the heck has that come from?
Added to which. Dwight McNeil man of the match.
Eh?
Plus they did a similar job at that price for someone I know a couple of streets over.
I wonder if your numbers are being pushed up by including basements (insanely expensive) ?
Well deserved and Brighton had no answer to being hit on the brake
You should be safe now and rest happy in your power of prayer
I'm always cautious with Labour. Maybe its shy Tories, but Labour often don't do as well as you might expect, or hope, given the circumstances. I mean:
1945 - Landslide - well done.
1950 - Turn a landslide into a majority of 2(!)
1951 - Lose and out of power for 13 years.
1964 - Do so well they manage a majority of only 2, after thirteen years of the Conservatives and up against Lord Home.
1966 - A good result!
1970 - everyone expected them to win, but then Gordon Banks didn't play, so they lost!
1974 (both) - Hung parliament and a wafer thin majority.
1979 - It was believed only six months earlier that Callaghan would manage to win, but he lost and Labour went to 18 years in the wilderness.
1992 - We're alright? No we're not. Expected to win, and lost instead.
1997 - 20 point lead.... no, actually only 12%. The seat totals and bias in the system just resulted in a massive majority. Major still got a bigger % of the vote than Foot, Brown and Miliband did.
2010 - Hung parliament, but not really in the game were they?
2015 - Five years of the hated coalition and they still lose.
2017 - They win by being sixty seats short.
2019 - Another hammering on par with Michael Foot's woeful performance.
No MOTD?
With 21 goals?
https://www.stvincenttimes.com/lord-ashcroft-polls-show-63-of-vincentians-prefer-monarchy-than-republic/
How many of those had the Tories more trusted on the economy, though?
For me, that's the difference this time.
Also. You can't count 2017 as being in anyway a surprise on the downside.
Just go back and read the comments on the night on here if you are in any doubt.
It brings in to question what value is really being added by modern building regulations.
Some real surprises in that Ashcroft list though, to be honest, if you've seen it. Given how apathetic it has been to date I'm surprised Canada would be so actively hostile.
In this case the Met have no excuse for their behaviour.
But that is politics
You haven't said how big the house is, nor what is included in the quote; the terms and conditions, contract etc.
I don't think you will get anything against City but you will get enough from your last two games to be safe 👍