Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Which figures are you using ?
Nationwide local peak:
Q3 1989 £62,782
Local nadir
Nov 1992 £49,602
20% rather than a 50% fall.
In real terms the fall was 40% with true recovery in house prices occuring after 1996.
I was using a house my mate bought for £80k in Spring 1989, A year later he got a valuation of £45k but was told that it would not sell. The fall in house prices was far more than the offical figures in some areas. In 1992 I was looking to buy a 1 bed flat in Brighton, there were literally hundreds for £30k or less, such flats are now 10 times the cost. The offical figures are skewed as properties just did not sale in that period. (yet somehow the tories won in 1992)
So another anecdote. Anecdotes are not data.
Hopefully in real terms those flats will be back to 1992 levels soon. I doubt it, but it'd be great if they are.
The crash WAS far worse in the south though - Sir Mark Boleat looked at this in his 1994 paper.
Table 4. Regional House Price Decreases in the United Kingdom Region East Anglia 34.5 Southeast 30.7 Greater London 28.5 Southwest 28.8 East Midlands 19.4 West Midlands 10.9 Wales 9.6 Northwest 10.2 Yorkshire and Humberside 9.3 North 6.1 Northern Ireland 4.6 Scotland 1.3
The bit in bold shows why Liz Truss should never think about standing for high office again.
Liz Truss said the conclusions of the privileges committee report into Boris Johnson were “overly harsh” and she would not be voting to approve its recommendations in the Commons today.
The former prime minister said the inquiry’s recommendations of a 90-day suspension for her predecessor if he were still an MP were too severe. “He himself has said he’s made mistakes, and none of us are perfect,” she said. “I’m not questioning the integrity of the report that parliamentarians have put forward. I think the judgment is pretty harsh, but I’m not questioning the integrity of those people.”
Truss, 47, who resigned in October after just 44 days in office, was speaking at a conference in Dublin and said she would not be back in time to vote over whether to approve the committee’s report.
She said Johnson had motivated people with his vision of Britain but was “not popular among what you might call the sort of ‘elite intelligentsia’ in Britain”.
“So yes, there are legitimate criticisms of Boris, but there are also a group of people who quite like the status quo the way it is, don’t want things to change, didn’t want Brexit, don’t want to see economic reforms.”
Truss also said it was “puerile” of the Daily Star newspaper during her time in office to run a livestream of a 60p lettuce to test which would last longer.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Which figures are you using ?
Nationwide local peak:
Q3 1989 £62,782
Local nadir
Nov 1992 £49,602
20% rather than a 50% fall.
In real terms the fall was 40% with true recovery in house prices occuring after 1996.
I was using a house my mate bought for £80k in Spring 1989, A year later he got a valuation of £45k but was told that it would not sell. The fall in house prices was far more than the offical figures in some areas. In 1992 I was looking to buy a 1 bed flat in Brighton, there were literally hundreds for £30k or less, such flats are now 10 times the cost. The offical figures are skewed as properties just did not sale in that period. (yet somehow the tories won in 1992)
So another anecdote. Anecdotes are not data.
Hopefully in real terms those flats will be back to 1992 levels soon. I doubt it, but it'd be great if they are.
The crash WAS far worse in the south though - Sir Mark Boleat looked at this in his 1994 paper.
Table 4. Regional House Price Decreases in the United Kingdom Region East Anglia 34.5 Southeast 30.7 Greater London 28.5 Southwest 28.8 East Midlands 19.4 West Midlands 10.9 Wales 9.6 Northwest 10.2 Yorkshire and Humberside 9.3 North 6.1 Northern Ireland 4.6 Scotland 1.3
Are those real or nominal?
Real I think.
Source: Halifax Building Society, standardized house prices, all buyers, all houses. Note: In each region except Scotland, the index in the first quarter of 1993 was at its lowest point since the index peak. In Scotland, the maximum fall was 3.9 percent between the second and third quarters of 1992.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
That is one hell of a record. Circumstance? Luck? Planning? Work? I am envious. I may not have any time for politicians but they are part of the history of our country - particularly when they get to PM level - and it is fascinating to get first hand experience of those who will become historical figures.
Yes I've been very lucky, as a political anorak it has been fascinating. All except Callaghan were through work - lunches etc mostly, although I met Blair on the Eurostar coming back from a conference in Paris where he had been the main speaker. I met Callaghan at my grandparents' golden wedding anniversary when I was a kid, the Callaghans were my grandparents' next door neighbours in the 1950s. Callaghan and Major seemed the nicest - Major has a warmth and charisma that isn't captured on TV. Blair seemed very clever. Cameron was slick. Johnson was very friendly but seemed like he needed the attention. Starmer seemed a bit cautious and dare I say it boring! So pretty much all as you might imagine.
This is often said about Major. His grey, pea-eating puppet on Spitting Image I think actually did him quite a lot of damage, and was unfair.
My two favourite political diaries (Clark and Mullin) both show him in a positive light - engaging and likeable.
He was treated very poorly by the press, I think there was certainly some snobbishness at work there and he felt it. But also he suffered from inheriting a government that was already unpopular and running out of steam. He did well to just get the Tories over the line, a testament to his own skills as a politician, in 1992, but it was a poisoned chalice. Today's Tories seem to disdain Major (because they are mostly inheritors of the 'Bastards' tradition that he tried in vain to contain) but I think he was a good PM with sound judgement, and a thoroughly decent man - too decent for the snakepit of front line politics, maybe.
Intellectual snobbery, I think, against Prime Ministers who did not go to Oxford (like, remember, a lot of senior media figures as well as politicians) meant that Major and Kinnock and IDS were not treated seriously, were not acceptable.
So...we have the right in the shape of CR saying that SKS is hard left and the left in the shape of BJO saying that SKS is hard right. Who to believe? Shall we run a poll?
The bit in bold shows why Liz Truss should never think about standing for high office again.
Liz Truss said the conclusions of the privileges committee report into Boris Johnson were “overly harsh” and she would not be voting to approve its recommendations in the Commons today.
The former prime minister said the inquiry’s recommendations of a 90-day suspension for her predecessor if he were still an MP were too severe. “He himself has said he’s made mistakes, and none of us are perfect,” she said. “I’m not questioning the integrity of the report that parliamentarians have put forward. I think the judgment is pretty harsh, but I’m not questioning the integrity of those people.”
Truss, 47, who resigned in October after just 44 days in office, was speaking at a conference in Dublin and said she would not be back in time to vote over whether to approve the committee’s report.
She said Johnson had motivated people with his vision of Britain but was “not popular among what you might call the sort of ‘elite intelligentsia’ in Britain”.
“So yes, there are legitimate criticisms of Boris, but there are also a group of people who quite like the status quo the way it is, don’t want things to change, didn’t want Brexit, don’t want to see economic reforms.”
Truss also said it was “puerile” of the Daily Star newspaper during her time in office to run a livestream of a 60p lettuce to test which would last longer.
Saying Keir Starmer might be more radical than you think is a bit like saying Liz Truss might surprise on the upside. The bar is already laying on the floor, it might be possible to step over it.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Interest rates were 15% in the late 80's, the idea that we are heading for something similar is just silly.
Houses only cost half* what they did now back in the 80s.
That's real terms. (Nominal it's about quadruple)
6% now and 15% then are broadly comparable.
If thats correct then we are headed for a collosal fall in house prices. Whats worth 400k now will only be worth 200k in a year beacuse thats what happened in 1990, what was worth 80k in 1989 was only worth 40k by the end of 1990.
Hopefully. 👍
House price to income ratios falling back down to 3x would be a long overdue correction to the market.
Worth noting that even in 1989 house prices were nothing like the ratio to income they are today, so hopefully its an even bigger correction than happened at that time.
That would be great news for any cash investor (as indeed, it was in the early nineties).
It would be terrible news for anyone with a mortgage. Repossessions would soar, commercial loans on residential property would be called in, there would be a credit crunch, and unemployment would rocket.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'.
The imbalances in the economy need to be fixed. Yes, it can be painful to fix them, but afterwards we're better with them fixed than still broken.
'If it isn't hurting, it isn't working'. Very few people who express that sentiment are the ones doing the hurting.
Indeed, but isn't it remarkable how when its renters or others hurting as its been for years barely a squeak is heard.
But if people with equity might lose their equity, suddenly its unthinkable for hurt to happen.
Whatever happened to "the country needs to accept its poorer". Is it just "only those without equity need to be poorer"?
I'd have thought the situation for renters will probably get worse before it gets better as higher rates force borrow to let LLs out the market (Or massively increase rents to wipe their face) leaving the rental stock with lower supply than previously.
Yes. An awful lot of the commentariat seem surprised that a ‘war on landlords’ means that landlords exit the market, and there’s now a shortage of decent rental property, which leads to rents going up.
Things can, and probably will, get better in the medium term, but the short-term effects were entirely predictable.
"Why did it take a murderous war on Ukraine for Germany to wake up to the threat from Russia? Helene von Bismarck The invasion has plunged Germany into an agonised debate about its history – this process is only just beginning"
It was a popular conspiracy theory that MI5 (or some such) went around offing people the government found troublesome: Dr David Kelly, Hilda Murrell, Princess Diana.
It was a popular conspiracy theory that MI5 (or some such) went around offing people the government found troublesome: Dr David Kelly, Hilda Murrell, Princess Diana.
David Cameron appointed a minister who believed David Kelly was murdered.
Fans of John Major and non-fans of Alastair Campbell will be interested to learn The Rest is Politics has just interviewed Major in its Leading series.
@tamcohen PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
Sunak: A profile in courage
@campbellclaret Getting the sense Sunak doesn’t really care much about standards in public life.
Like that prick would know? His shenanigans led an innocent man to take his own life. For shame.
Unless, of course, he was murdered.
He wasn't. He was humiliated in public and took his own life, unable to bear the shame. I remember watching his testimony at the committee, his strangled whispery voice and tortured body language, and thinking to myself, 'the poor guy, he looks utterly broken'. When the news of his suicide broke I was shocked but not surprised.
Conservative activists filmed dancing at a Christmas party during Covid restrictions in 2020 were invited to "Jingle and Mingle" according to an invite seen by the BBC.
The invitation was sent to 30 people on behalf of Shaun Bailey's campaign for Mayor of London.
At the time London was under Tier-2 restrictions when indoor socialising was banned.
Police are reviewing video of the event first published by the Mirror.
Conservative activists filmed dancing at a Christmas party during Covid restrictions in 2020 were invited to "Jingle and Mingle" according to an invite seen by the BBC.
The invitation was sent to 30 people on behalf of Shaun Bailey's campaign for Mayor of London.
At the time London was under Tier-2 restrictions when indoor socialising was banned.
Police are reviewing video of the event first published by the Mirror.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Conservative activists filmed dancing at a Christmas party during Covid restrictions in 2020 were invited to "Jingle and Mingle" according to an invite seen by the BBC.
The invitation was sent to 30 people on behalf of Shaun Bailey's campaign for Mayor of London.
At the time London was under Tier-2 restrictions when indoor socialising was banned.
Police are reviewing video of the event first published by the Mirror.
The bit in bold shows why Liz Truss should never think about standing for high office again.
Liz Truss said the conclusions of the privileges committee report into Boris Johnson were “overly harsh” and she would not be voting to approve its recommendations in the Commons today.
The former prime minister said the inquiry’s recommendations of a 90-day suspension for her predecessor if he were still an MP were too severe. “He himself has said he’s made mistakes, and none of us are perfect,” she said. “I’m not questioning the integrity of the report that parliamentarians have put forward. I think the judgment is pretty harsh, but I’m not questioning the integrity of those people.”
Truss, 47, who resigned in October after just 44 days in office, was speaking at a conference in Dublin and said she would not be back in time to vote over whether to approve the committee’s report.
She said Johnson had motivated people with his vision of Britain but was “not popular among what you might call the sort of ‘elite intelligentsia’ in Britain”.
“So yes, there are legitimate criticisms of Boris, but there are also a group of people who quite like the status quo the way it is, don’t want things to change, didn’t want Brexit, don’t want to see economic reforms.”
Truss also said it was “puerile” of the Daily Star newspaper during her time in office to run a livestream of a 60p lettuce to test which would last longer.
Conservative activists filmed dancing at a Christmas party during Covid restrictions in 2020 were invited to "Jingle and Mingle" according to an invite seen by the BBC.
The invitation was sent to 30 people on behalf of Shaun Bailey's campaign for Mayor of London.
At the time London was under Tier-2 restrictions when indoor socialising was banned.
Police are reviewing video of the event first published by the Mirror.
Shaun Bailey has just been sent to the Lords in Boris's resignation honours list. It's not just about Nad.
Who's in the House of Lords Members of the House of Lords bring experience and knowledge from a wide range of occupations. Many members continue to be active in their fields and have successful careers in business, culture, science, sports, academia, law, education, health and public service. They bring this knowledge to their role of examining matters of public interest that affect all UK citizens.
Conservative activists filmed dancing at a Christmas party during Covid restrictions in 2020 were invited to "Jingle and Mingle" according to an invite seen by the BBC.
The invitation was sent to 30 people on behalf of Shaun Bailey's campaign for Mayor of London.
At the time London was under Tier-2 restrictions when indoor socialising was banned.
Police are reviewing video of the event first published by the Mirror.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Depends how offensive, doesn't it.
Also, was it a loud shirt in a built up area? Was he also in possession of an offensive wife?
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Depends how offensive, doesn't it.
Well I’m a Liverpool fan, and admitted on here that, after a few beers, I’d probably have swung for the guy. The offensive t-shirt would be fair to argue as provocation in my defence, but I’m not sure that it should be illegal to display a sign, no matter how offensive, that wasn’t targeting someone specific. It is of course totally fair for Man United, and every other football club, to ban him from attending matches.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Depends how offensive, doesn't it.
Well I’m a Liverpool fan, and admitted on here that, after a few beers, I’d probably have swung for the guy. The offensive t-shirt would be fair to argue as provocation in my defence, but I’m not sure that it should be illegal to display a sign, no matter how offensive, that wasn’t targeting someone specific.
Conservative activists filmed dancing at a Christmas party during Covid restrictions in 2020 were invited to "Jingle and Mingle" according to an invite seen by the BBC.
The invitation was sent to 30 people on behalf of Shaun Bailey's campaign for Mayor of London.
At the time London was under Tier-2 restrictions when indoor socialising was banned.
Police are reviewing video of the event first published by the Mirror.
Its ridiculous. I've been very doveish on the whole thing because I could see how work might merge into a quiet social, but this clearly isn't that (as indeed several of the other ones weren't either.).
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
Being likeable in person doesn't actually prevent someone from being a complete shit. All it means is that they are good at, and enjoy, making other people enjoy their presence. It doesn't mean that they care about other people or have a conscience. Had a boss like that - very polite and made you feel comfortable in person, also completely dishonest and self-centred.
That's true. But, nothing I've heard of Nadine suggests she is a shit. Just a bit bonkers.
@tamcohen PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
Sunak: A profile in courage
@campbellclaret Getting the sense Sunak doesn’t really care much about standards in public life.
Like that prick would know? His shenanigans led an innocent man to take his own life. For shame.
Unless, of course, he was murdered.
He wasn't. He was humiliated in public and took his own life, unable to bear the shame. I remember watching his testimony at the committee, his strangled whispery voice and tortured body language, and thinking to myself, 'the poor guy, he looks utterly broken'. When the news of his suicide broke I was shocked but not surprised.
Campbell is still admired by some because he was very effective. I am not one of those admirers.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
Being likeable in person doesn't actually prevent someone from being a complete shit. All it means is that they are good at, and enjoy, making other people enjoy their presence. It doesn't mean that they care about other people or have a conscience. Had a boss like that - very polite and made you feel comfortable in person, also completely dishonest and self-centred.
That's true. But, nothing I've heard of Nadine suggests she is a shit. Just a bit bonkers.
IIRC she was the first MP to volunteer herself for NHS work as the pandemic kicked off. She comes across as a good person, even if one disagrees with her political views.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
And this is the fundamental problem: you want to rebalance house prices, but you want to do it without causing significant amounts of pain.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Depends how offensive, doesn't it.
Well I’m a Liverpool fan, and admitted on here that, after a few beers, I’d probably have swung for the guy. The offensive t-shirt would be fair to argue as provocation in my defence, but I’m not sure that it should be illegal to display a sign, no matter how offensive, that wasn’t targeting someone specific.
Fighting words?
As @DougSeal pointed out the concept of "fighting words" was well established in public order cases at common law, well before statutes were passed.
If I posted the words "Six Million, Not Enough" about the holocaust, on a blog, it would be grossly offensive, but not actionable in most cases. If I stood outside a synagogue, with a T shirt bearing those words, it would be very actionable.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
That is one hell of a record. Circumstance? Luck? Planning? Work? I am envious. I may not have any time for politicians but they are part of the history of our country - particularly when they get to PM level - and it is fascinating to get first hand experience of those who will become historical figures.
Yes I've been very lucky, as a political anorak it has been fascinating. All except Callaghan were through work - lunches etc mostly, although I met Blair on the Eurostar coming back from a conference in Paris where he had been the main speaker. I met Callaghan at my grandparents' golden wedding anniversary when I was a kid, the Callaghans were my grandparents' next door neighbours in the 1950s. Callaghan and Major seemed the nicest - Major has a warmth and charisma that isn't captured on TV. Blair seemed very clever. Cameron was slick. Johnson was very friendly but seemed like he needed the attention. Starmer seemed a bit cautious and dare I say it boring! So pretty much all as you might imagine.
Your warm opinion of Callaghan and Major seems to have been picked up in public polling, particularly compared with the relative state of their parties at the time.
That graphic is a bit silly in the sense that obviously popularity at the end of a PM's tenure is lower than at its peak, because highest point is the definition of a "peak".
Also, it lists Sunak, but he has not (unless the Sunday Times knows something) reached the end of his tenure yet.
Don't think it's silly. The chart notes two metrics people are interested in: maximum popularity and popularity at time of leaving office. No need to create two charts.
Cannot see us getting it. I think right now I'd take 250 if offered. Hope I'm wrong.
How about 180?
At the moment it looks like a wicket every ball.
We need to push on after lunch, regain the initiative, even if we score well but only last 20 - 25 more overs, this pushes us to 275 which really should be enough.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Depends how offensive, doesn't it.
Well I’m a Liverpool fan, and admitted on here that, after a few beers, I’d probably have swung for the guy. The offensive t-shirt would be fair to argue as provocation in my defence, but I’m not sure that it should be illegal to display a sign, no matter how offensive, that wasn’t targeting someone specific. It is of course totally fair for Man United, and every other football club, to ban him from attending matches.
As I've said before, wandering round Stamford Hill with a t-shirt proclaiming that the Holocaust wasn't efficient enough, or Kilburn saying that the Great Hunger was caused by fussy eating, would rightly get you arrested. For your own protection if nothing else. It's the public's peace you are disturbing. Whether or not a specific individual could or should be offended has nothing to do with it.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Depends how offensive, doesn't it.
Well I’m a Liverpool fan, and admitted on here that, after a few beers, I’d probably have swung for the guy. The offensive t-shirt would be fair to argue as provocation in my defence, but I’m not sure that it should be illegal to display a sign, no matter how offensive, that wasn’t targeting someone specific.
Fighting words?
As @DougSeal pointed out the concept of "fighting words" was well established in public order cases at common law, well before statutes were passed.
If I posted the words "Six Million, Not Enough" about the holocaust, on a blog, it would be grossly offensive, but not actionable in most cases. If I stood outside a synagogue, with a T shirt bearing those words, it would be very actionable.
Wearing that shirt at the FA Cup Final is probably somewhere in between. Not on the internet, but also not at a Liverpool game.
"Why did it take a murderous war on Ukraine for Germany to wake up to the threat from Russia? Helene von Bismarck The invasion has plunged Germany into an agonised debate about its history – this process is only just beginning"
Because the leaders of Germany until very recently were of an age where they felt personal guilt for the deaths of millions of Russians in the second world war.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
And this is the fundamental problem: you want to rebalance house prices, but you want to do it without causing significant amounts of pain.
The only way that happens is slowly. In a perfect world, about 5-6% pa in money terms for a handful of years, as inflation does its thing. That way very few people end up in negative equity, which is what totally screws the market, as seen in the early ‘90s.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
Some people are borderline sociopaths. Or think that the red in tooth and claw aspects of the free market are a good in themselves, rather than a necessary price to pay for all the good things that free markets unlock.
It would undoubtedly be better for Britain as a whole if less of our wealth was tied up in houses, and more of it was being useful. And it's true that the best way of not being in the current mess- to have not let house prices rip in the 80s, again in the late 90s/early noughties- is impossible unless we invent a time machine. And gentle deflation without a crash is difficult to engineer.
But that doesn't mean that a house price crash is a thing to be desired. A lot of the people who will get hurt are people who didn't speculate, but wanted a home to call their own.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Depends how offensive, doesn't it.
Well I’m a Liverpool fan, and admitted on here that, after a few beers, I’d probably have swung for the guy. The offensive t-shirt would be fair to argue as provocation in my defence, but I’m not sure that it should be illegal to display a sign, no matter how offensive, that wasn’t targeting someone specific.
Fighting words?
As @DougSeal pointed out the concept of "fighting words" was well established in public order cases at common law, well before statutes were passed.
If I posted the words "Six Million, Not Enough" about the holocaust, on a blog, it would be grossly offensive, but not actionable in most cases. If I stood outside a synagogue, with a T shirt bearing those words, it would be very actionable.
Wearing that shirt at the FA Cup Final is probably somewhere in between. Not on the internet, but also not at a Liverpool game.
It was at a high profile, televised, game of football. Just because Liverpool were not playing in it is neither here nor there. Wearing that t-shirt anywhere in England & Wales would have got you arrested.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Depends how offensive, doesn't it.
Well I’m a Liverpool fan, and admitted on here that, after a few beers, I’d probably have swung for the guy. The offensive t-shirt would be fair to argue as provocation in my defence, but I’m not sure that it should be illegal to display a sign, no matter how offensive, that wasn’t targeting someone specific. It is of course totally fair for Man United, and every other football club, to ban him from attending matches.
As I've said before, wandering round Stamford Hill with a t-shirt proclaiming that the Holocaust wasn't efficient enough, or Kilburn saying that the Great Hunger was caused by fussy eating, would rightly get you arrested. For your own protection if nothing else. It's the public's peace you are disturbing. Whether or not a specific individual could or should be offended has nothing to do with it.
PB armchair lawyers please explain
That doesn't explain the arrest in this case as the final was against Liverpool rather than Man City though ?
Saying Keir Starmer might be more radical than you think is a bit like saying Liz Truss might surprise on the upside. The bar is already laying on the floor, it might be possible to step over it.
This is the beauty of the Starmer project. He's going to come to power with a good majority yet with nobody expecting much. You cannot have a better platform from which to launch into government than that.
The gist is that some platforms like Freetrade let fractional shares to be included in ISAs, but this is not allowed. It is not actually clear whether HMRC can be bothered to reclaim the tax lost.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
And this is the fundamental problem: you want to rebalance house prices, but you want to do it without causing significant amounts of pain.
The only way that happens is slowly. In a perfect world, about 5-6% pa in money terms for a handful of years, as inflation does its thing. That way very few people end up in negative equity, which is what totally screws the market, as seen in the early ‘90s.
Yep.
And that is also hard to manage. What you probably want is for house prices to drift very slightly in real terms, while inflation runs at 5% or so (and wages at 7%).
In that way, it takes only four of five years to correct.
But if you let inflation get too high, then you need to stamp on the interest rate pedal, and you induce a recession. And if you don't let it rise enough, then you do very little to solve the problem.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
Because what you went through is nowhere near as bad as what others are going through today.
If you go into negative equity but are able to keep up your mortgage repayments then you still have a home of your own and eventually you'll come out the other side, still with a home of your own. While mobility may be hit as you can't move, you're still in your own home.
If OTOH you're in a situation where you could afford a mortgage, after all you're paying your landlord's mortgage, but you can't get one as the prices are ever-escalating making it impossible to save enough of a deposit which constantly needs to go up, then that is far worse.
What you went through is bad, uncomfortable, but not terrible. What others are going through is much, much worse.
Its like saying "why would you want to go through chemotherapy, its awful" - well it may be awful, but if the alternative is worse then it can be the last bad option before you.
@tamcohen PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
Sunak: A profile in courage
@campbellclaret Getting the sense Sunak doesn’t really care much about standards in public life.
Like that prick would know? His shenanigans led an innocent man to take his own life. For shame.
Unless, of course, he was murdered.
He wasn't. He was humiliated in public and took his own life, unable to bear the shame. I remember watching his testimony at the committee, his strangled whispery voice and tortured body language, and thinking to myself, 'the poor guy, he looks utterly broken'. When the news of his suicide broke I was shocked but not surprised.
Campbell is still admired by some because he was very effective. I am not one of those admirers.
I did find his diaries surprisingly interesting, and frank about his own faults. He's an interesting man, but in no position to claim the moral high ground over anybody.
I’m still not sure that wearing a grossly offensive t-shirt should be illegal, but I guess his lawyer had a good idea of what sentence a guilty plea would bring, vs trying to defend himself to the magistrates. There’s also a lot of specific history and case law around football matches, that muddies the waters somewhat.
Depends how offensive, doesn't it.
Well I’m a Liverpool fan, and admitted on here that, after a few beers, I’d probably have swung for the guy. The offensive t-shirt would be fair to argue as provocation in my defence, but I’m not sure that it should be illegal to display a sign, no matter how offensive, that wasn’t targeting someone specific.
Fighting words?
As @DougSeal pointed out the concept of "fighting words" was well established in public order cases at common law, well before statutes were passed.
If I posted the words "Six Million, Not Enough" about the holocaust, on a blog, it would be grossly offensive, but not actionable in most cases. If I stood outside a synagogue, with a T shirt bearing those words, it would be very actionable.
Wearing that shirt at the FA Cup Final is probably somewhere in between. Not on the internet, but also not at a Liverpool game.
It was at a high profile, televised, game of football. Just because Liverpool were not playing in it is neither here nor there. Wearing that t-shirt anywhere in England & Wales would have got you arrested.
It seems to me that most of the distress was caused by the image being put on Twitter. Could the person who put the image on Twitter have been in trouble?
The gist is that some platforms like Freetrade let fractional shares to be included in ISAs, but this is not allowed. It is not actually clear whether HMRC can be bothered to reclaim the tax lost.
The government’s focus needs to be on the company itself, not the investors. If Freetrade didn’t follow the rules, then fine the hell out of them and let their shareholders take the hit.
Saying Keir Starmer might be more radical than you think is a bit like saying Liz Truss might surprise on the upside. The bar is already laying on the floor, it might be possible to step over it.
This is the beauty of the Starmer project. He's going to come to power with a good majority yet with nobody expecting much. You cannot have a better platform from which to launch into government than that.
I feel Starmer is consistently underestimated (not by @Casino_Royale from the perspective of an opponent, I should point out). As was Margaret Thatcher, whom Starmer resembles to a surprising degree.
Of course if you are too much underestimated, you don't get elected. The Tories are definitely helping him out in this respect.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
Because what you went through is nowhere near as bad as what others are going through today.
If you go into negative equity but are able to keep up your mortgage repayments then you still have a home of your own and eventually you'll come out the other side, still with a home of your own. While mobility may be hit as you can't move, you're still in your own home.
If OTOH you're in a situation where you could afford a mortgage, after all you're paying your landlord's mortgage, but you can't get one as the prices are ever-escalating making it impossible to save enough of a deposit which constantly needs to go up, then that is far worse.
What you went through is bad, uncomfortable, but not terrible. What others are going through is much, much worse.
Its like saying "why would you want to go through chemotherapy, its awful" - well it may be awful, but if the alternative is worse then it can be the last bad option before you.
My point is, I was one of the lucky ones. Others, in my position, were much less lucky. The ones who were left saddled with big, unsecured, debts, after their homes had been sold for less than the value of the mortgage (plus interest, legal fees etc.)
@tamcohen PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
Sunak: A profile in courage
@campbellclaret Getting the sense Sunak doesn’t really care much about standards in public life.
Like that prick would know? His shenanigans led an innocent man to take his own life. For shame.
Unless, of course, he was murdered.
He wasn't. He was humiliated in public and took his own life, unable to bear the shame. I remember watching his testimony at the committee, his strangled whispery voice and tortured bodnguage, and thinking to myself, 'the poor guy, he looks utterly broken'. When the news of his suicide broke I was shocked but not surprised.
Campbell is still admired by some because he was very effective. I am not one of those admirers.
I did find his diaries surprisingly interesting, and frank about his own faults. He's an interesting man, but in no position to claim the moral high ground over anybody.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
Because what you went through is nowhere near as bad as what others are going through today.
If you go into negative equity but are able to keep up your mortgage repayments then you still have a home of your own and eventually you'll come out the other side, still with a home of your own. While mobility may be hit as you can't move, you're still in your own home.
If OTOH you're in a situation where you could afford a mortgage, after all you're paying your landlord's mortgage, but you can't get one as the prices are ever-escalating making it impossible to save enough of a deposit which constantly needs to go up, then that is far worse.
What you went through is bad, uncomfortable, but not terrible. What others are going through is much, much worse.
Its like saying "why would you want to go through chemotherapy, its awful" - well it may be awful, but if the alternative is worse then it can be the last bad option before you.
My point is, I was one of the lucky ones. Others, in my position, were much less lucky. The ones who were left saddled with big, unsecured, debts, after their homes had been sold for less than the value of the mortgage (plus interest, legal fees etc.)
Yes, others were less lucky then. That's bad for them. Its unfortunate, but in any year some people do go bankrupt and that still happens today.
Others are less lucky today too.
More people today have been less lucky in recent years than you were at the time, than were at the time.
A correction would be painful, nobody denies that, but it would be less painful than not having one.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
Because what you went through is nowhere near as bad as what others are going through today.
If you go into negative equity but are able to keep up your mortgage repayments then you still have a home of your own and eventually you'll come out the other side, still with a home of your own. While mobility may be hit as you can't move, you're still in your own home.
If OTOH you're in a situation where you could afford a mortgage, after all you're paying your landlord's mortgage, but you can't get one as the prices are ever-escalating making it impossible to save enough of a deposit which constantly needs to go up, then that is far worse.
What you went through is bad, uncomfortable, but not terrible. What others are going through is much, much worse.
Its like saying "why would you want to go through chemotherapy, its awful" - well it may be awful, but if the alternative is worse then it can be the last bad option before you.
My point is, I was one of the lucky ones. Others, in my position, were much less lucky. The ones who were left saddled with big, unsecured, debts, after their homes had been sold for less than the value of the mortgage (plus interest, legal fees etc.)
The nightmare scenario is negative equity, followed by heading onto your lender's SVR (Which will be several % above base with no option to extend); being unable to make the payments and having a forced sale with bankruptcy at the end of it all.
"Why did it take a murderous war on Ukraine for Germany to wake up to the threat from Russia? Helene von Bismarck The invasion has plunged Germany into an agonised debate about its history – this process is only just beginning"
Because the leaders of Germany until very recently were of an age where they felt personal guilt for the deaths of millions of Russians in the second world war.
I don't think this is complicated.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The moral debt argument was pretty self serving. A lot of Germans did well out of the cosy relationship with Russia, whether it was business deals or cheap gas.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
And this is the fundamental problem: you want to rebalance house prices, but you want to do it without causing significant amounts of pain.
The only way that happens is slowly. In a perfect world, about 5-6% pa in money terms for a handful of years, as inflation does its thing. That way very few people end up in negative equity, which is what totally screws the market, as seen in the early ‘90s.
Yep.
And that is also hard to manage. What you probably want is for house prices to drift very slightly in real terms, while inflation runs at 5% or so (and wages at 7%).
In that way, it takes only four of five years to correct.
But if you let inflation get too high, then you need to stamp on the interest rate pedal, and you induce a recession. And if you don't let it rise enough, then you do very little to solve the problem.
That's definitely what we want, yes. No crash, no blood, a gradual real terms correction over a few years as prices and earnings inflate but property stays put. But asset markets under stress due to a change in fundamentals tend not to play ball like that. They defy the basics for a while and then go (too) hard and (too) fast as the penny drops. So I expect a nasty crash that overshoots before recovering to a new (still comfortably lower than now) equilibrium.
"Why did it take a murderous war on Ukraine for Germany to wake up to the threat from Russia? Helene von Bismarck The invasion has plunged Germany into an agonised debate about its history – this process is only just beginning"
Because the leaders of Germany until very recently were of an age where they felt personal guilt for the deaths of millions of Russians in the second world war.
I don't think this is complicated.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The moral debt argument was pretty self serving. A lot of people did well out of the cosy relationship with Russia, whether it was business deals or cheap gas.
Yeah, except for the fact that Germany paid market rates for gas.
"Why did it take a murderous war on Ukraine for Germany to wake up to the threat from Russia? Helene von Bismarck The invasion has plunged Germany into an agonised debate about its history – this process is only just beginning"
Because the leaders of Germany until very recently were of an age where they felt personal guilt for the deaths of millions of Russians in the second world war.
I don't think this is complicated.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The moral debt argument was pretty self serving. A lot of Germans did well out of the cosy relationship with Russia, whether it was business deals or cheap gas.
Yes, it's incredibly jarring for Germans to play this card. (I have little knowledge as to whether they do or not, but rcs is usually good on this stuff so I assume some do).
@lizziedearden Breaking: The Met Police has launched a new investigation into alleged breaches of Covid laws at Downing Street, Chequers, inside parliament and at CCHQ
It said "a number of other events" have been referred since original Partygate probe
@jamesjohnson252 Partygate contagion now extending beyond Boris Johnson and to the wider Conservative Party.
Barnard Castle + Partygate still come up in focus groups. Lockdown-breaking could end up being the defining political story of this parliament.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I found myself paying 15%, on a £75K mortgage, on a flat by then worth £45K, in 1992. And, I was lucky. I found a couple of tenants, and was able to meet the mortgage payments. Huge numbers of people ending up repossessed, with big debts hanging round their necks. Eventually, I sold in 2000, after prices had recovered.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
Because what you went through is nowhere near as bad as what others are going through today.
If you go into negative equity but are able to keep up your mortgage repayments then you still have a home of your own and eventually you'll come out the other side, still with a home of your own. While mobility may be hit as you can't move, you're still in your own home.
If OTOH you're in a situation where you could afford a mortgage, after all you're paying your landlord's mortgage, but you can't get one as the prices are ever-escalating making it impossible to save enough of a deposit which constantly needs to go up, then that is far worse.
What you went through is bad, uncomfortable, but not terrible. What others are going through is much, much worse.
Its like saying "why would you want to go through chemotherapy, its awful" - well it may be awful, but if the alternative is worse then it can be the last bad option before you.
My point is, I was one of the lucky ones. Others, in my position, were much less lucky. The ones who were left saddled with big, unsecured, debts, after their homes had been sold for less than the value of the mortgage (plus interest, legal fees etc.)
The nightmare scenario is negative equity, followed by heading onto your lender's SVR (Which will be several % above base with no option to extend); being unable to make the payments and having a forced sale with bankruptcy at the end of it all.
Which is very bad if it happens, but basically puts you back to the position a great many renters are in today. You'll end up without a home, without assets, and having to pay rent - just as millions are in today.
Trying to stop some people who can't afford to keep up mortgage repayments from losing their own home is not a reason to ensure millions more can't afford to get their own home in the first place.
Not everyone can afford to keep up with mortgage repayments, its a shame but true. But we shouldn't be in a position where couples who both work can't afford to get a mortgage due to ever-escalating house prices even if they can afford to pay for their landlord's mortgage repayments.
@tamcohen PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
Sunak: A profile in courage
@campbellclaret Getting the sense Sunak doesn’t really care much about standards in public life.
Like that prick would know? His shenanigans led an innocent man to take his own life. For shame.
The lies Blair told to the HoC based upon the documents Campbell fabricated were of an entirely different order of magnitude to the ridiculous lies told by Johnson.
Johnson deserves everything he has got but Campbell should know when to shut up.
Comments
Bournemouth have sacked Gary O'Neill.
UFOUAP... Only @Leon and @WhisperingOracle know the truth...All this "Liz was right" stuff at the moment, especially in the Telegrap.
Source: Halifax Building Society, standardized house prices, all buyers, all houses.
Note: In each region except Scotland, the index in the first quarter of 1993 was at its
lowest point since the index peak. In Scotland, the maximum fall was 3.9 percent
between the second and third quarters of 1992.
A more malign influence in politics, in recent years, it is hard to imagine.
Even he can take the moral high ground with respect to the current Government.
That's how sleazy they are
Things can, and probably will, get better in the medium term, but the short-term effects were entirely predictable.
Helene von Bismarck
The invasion has plunged Germany into an agonised debate about its history – this process is only just beginning"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/19/why-did-it-take-a-murderous-war-on-ukraine-for-germany-to-wake-up-to-the-threat-from-russia
(I mean, it was nice to have, but my family would not have starved or frozen had we just had to cough up at the time.)
At least it'll be better than an owl. "everybody should have his own HIMARS"
I had our prices fixed for 2 years in December 2021 so I wasn't impacted.
The £400 my father received went to the Trussell Trust.
What Margaret Thatcher Was Really Like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H_hL1SS6fE
Vision of a Classless Britain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlfbI_ssNtw
Conservative activists filmed dancing at a Christmas party during Covid restrictions in 2020 were invited to "Jingle and Mingle" according to an invite seen by the BBC.
The invitation was sent to 30 people on behalf of Shaun Bailey's campaign for Mayor of London.
At the time London was under Tier-2 restrictions when indoor socialising was banned.
Police are reviewing video of the event first published by the Mirror.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65952298
Members of the House of Lords bring experience and knowledge from a wide range of occupations. Many members continue to be active in their fields and have successful careers in business, culture, science, sports, academia, law, education, health and public service. They bring this knowledge to their role of examining matters of public interest that affect all UK citizens.
Nobody who actually experienced the bust of the early nineties, would want to experience it again.
A big housing crash would affect my business, but it would not affect my mortgage, which is now paid off. But, why would anyone wish for this to happen to happen to people in a position similar to mine in the 90's?
Bairstow review is a big win for England
Aussies only one review left too
I am not one of those admirers.
If I posted the words "Six Million, Not Enough" about the holocaust, on a blog, it would be grossly offensive, but not actionable in most cases. If I stood outside a synagogue, with a T shirt bearing those words, it would be very actionable.
A full house at Edgbaston. A good arvo of cricket ahead. All is right with the world
We need to push on after lunch, regain the initiative, even if we score well but only last 20 - 25 more overs, this pushes us to 275 which really should be enough.
I don't think this is complicated.
It would undoubtedly be better for Britain as a whole if less of our wealth was tied up in houses, and more of it was being useful. And it's true that the best way of not being in the current mess- to have not let house prices rip in the 80s, again in the late 90s/early noughties- is impossible unless we invent a time machine. And gentle deflation without a crash is difficult to engineer.
But that doesn't mean that a house price crash is a thing to be desired. A lot of the people who will get hurt are people who didn't speculate, but wanted a home to call their own.
Just normal men, just innocent men.
https://youtu.be/x5U1vGeILkI
That doesn't explain the arrest in this case as the final was against Liverpool rather than Man City though ?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/isas/freetrade-isa-investors-fractional-shares-tax-bill/ (£££)
The gist is that some platforms like Freetrade let fractional shares to be included in ISAs, but this is not allowed. It is not actually clear whether HMRC can be bothered to reclaim the tax lost.
And that is also hard to manage. What you probably want is for house prices to drift very slightly in real terms, while inflation runs at 5% or so (and wages at 7%).
In that way, it takes only four of five years to correct.
But if you let inflation get too high, then you need to stamp on the interest rate pedal, and you induce a recession. And if you don't let it rise enough, then you do very little to solve the problem.
If you go into negative equity but are able to keep up your mortgage repayments then you still have a home of your own and eventually you'll come out the other side, still with a home of your own. While mobility may be hit as you can't move, you're still in your own home.
If OTOH you're in a situation where you could afford a mortgage, after all you're paying your landlord's mortgage, but you can't get one as the prices are ever-escalating making it impossible to save enough of a deposit which constantly needs to go up, then that is far worse.
What you went through is bad, uncomfortable, but not terrible. What others are going through is much, much worse.
Its like saying "why would you want to go through chemotherapy, its awful" - well it may be awful, but if the alternative is worse then it can be the last bad option before you.
Aus 2.1
Eng 2.4
Draw 9
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/england-v-australia-betting-31978934
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/england/essex/undiscovered-essex-enclave-most-bucolic-burnham-on-crouch/
Of course if you are too much underestimated, you don't get elected. The Tories are definitely helping him out in this respect.
He's not a nice bloke, but he is interesting.
Others are less lucky today too.
More people today have been less lucky in recent years than you were at the time, than were at the time.
A correction would be painful, nobody denies that, but it would be less painful than not having one.
https://twitter.com/MatzovIvanov/status/1670770298650492928
Baffled as to why the article would use a picture of said offensive shirt,which would surely cause offence?
They’d need to get to 7%.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12210355/Now-SNP-wants-TWO-referendums-independence-drive.html
It had no impact on house prices, and *increased* rents, but did allow more first time buyers into the market.
To be honest that’s pretty much what you’d expect.
https://twitter.com/mkorevaar93/status/1670544264369958912?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12210047/Laurence-Fox-burns-LGBT-bunting-garden-Pride-Month-disgusting.html
Breaking: The Met Police has launched a new investigation into alleged breaches of Covid laws at Downing Street, Chequers, inside parliament and at CCHQ
It said "a number of other events" have been referred since original Partygate probe
@jamesjohnson252
Partygate contagion now extending beyond Boris Johnson and to the wider Conservative Party.
Barnard Castle + Partygate still come up in focus groups. Lockdown-breaking could end up being the defining political story of this parliament.
Countries don't buy energy. Companies buy energy. And they will do it from wherever it is cheapest.
Trying to stop some people who can't afford to keep up mortgage repayments from losing their own home is not a reason to ensure millions more can't afford to get their own home in the first place.
Not everyone can afford to keep up with mortgage repayments, its a shame but true. But we shouldn't be in a position where couples who both work can't afford to get a mortgage due to ever-escalating house prices even if they can afford to pay for their landlord's mortgage repayments.
Johnson deserves everything he has got but Campbell should know when to shut up.
https://www.rawstory.com/mike-pence-lies-black-lives-matter/