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.
No, you're in the same position if you end up with zero equity as a result of the sale. If you are underwater and contemplating bankruptcy your position is clearly worse. (Most) renters by definition have zero housing equity.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
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.
Difficulty is the distribution of the pain. A meaningful house price correction would utterly wipe out some people, in ways that will follow them for a long long time.
It's where the chemotherapy analogy falls down; there, the person suffering all the pain also gets all the benefits. If house prices fall to a significant degree, we will all be better off but the real pain is borne by a select group of unfortunates, not all of whom are BTL speculators.
Arguably, it's a bit more like closing schools to protect wider society during a wider pandemic. Everyone benefits (by not getting sick), but for a section of society the cost is high and the benefit is low.
@RobDotHutton You really do get the full range of spoiled child behaviours from today's Conservative Party, from Boris's toddler tantrums to this magnificently teenage quote.
@JAHeale New: Boris Johnson's supporters in parliament are planning to boycott' the Privileges Committee report as 'we don’t want to legitimise it'
"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.
The market rate for Russian gas was a lot lower than what the rest of the world was paying for gas, as Europe has recently discovered, and also why they bought so much of it.
To be fair to Germany it does seem to have made a genuine change following the current invasion. Many impression is that individuals and organisations are unambiguously on the side of Ukraine and I think German perceptions of its role in the second World war plays into that. They see Russia behaving in the same way as Germany previously did.
It's almost like a sense of desperation is creeping in as far as the SNP are concerned, as they head back to the 27% they polled in 1999 at the first Scottish parliament election.
Back in Blighty. London looking BEAUTIFUL AND EUROPEAN after the HORRORS of Urban America
A full house at Edgbaston. A good arvo of cricket ahead. All is right with the world
Birmingham being only an hour by train from London would almost qualify it as a suburb of the capital in US terms.
It was put to me by an American friend when I asked about relative distances: you must remember, they said, that Americans think nothing of driving five hours to pick up a taco.
@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.
He really does have no self-awareness whatsoever. Does he really want to bring up “Lying to Parliament”, when he’s personally responsible for two of the most egregious untruths in modern political history, one of which directly resulted in a suicide?
It's almost like a sense of desperation is creeping in as far as the SNP are concerned, as they head back to the 27% they polled in 1999 at the first Scottish parliament election.
@RobDotHutton You really do get the full range of spoiled child behaviours from today's Conservative Party, from Boris's toddler tantrums to this magnificently teenage quote.
@JAHeale New: Boris Johnson's supporters in parliament are planning to boycott' the Privileges Committee report as 'we don’t want to legitimise it'
The reason they are “boycotting the vote” is because if they vote against it will show the feeble size of his support base whereas if they “boycott” it they can try and claim all those others who don’t vote for different reasons.
"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.
The German policy of forging close ties with Russia so that any return to military conflict between the 2 nations became unthinkable was incredibly understandable imo. Of course they should have sussed Putin out earlier but this is easy for us to say. We don't have the Nazi v USSR history and we aren't slap bang in the middle of Europe with Russia not that far away.
Boris' suspension will be passed on the nod without a division I expect - as that suits everyone. It'd be funny if someone gave a NOOOE on the indicitive vote though forcing a division. Someone outside the Tories might be feeling mischievous.
Was it the swastika version of the LGBT flag that Fox and similar dimwits thinks is such scintillating satire? Cos I’m fine with that.
It was the "Progress Pride" version.
There is a school of thought which believes that young people are not treated appropriately when they seek help on issues surrounding gender in the wider context of their mental health which evidently Fox ascribes to.
"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.
The market rate for Russian gas was a lot lower than what the rest of the world was paying for gas, as Europe has recently discovered, and also why they bought so much of it.
To be fair to Germany it does seem to have made a genuine change following the current invasion. Many impression is that individuals and organisations are unambiguously on the side of Ukraine and I think German perceptions of its role in the second World war plays into that. They see Russia behaving in the same way as Germany previously did.
East Politics was a thing in Germany since before Bismarck.
Some argue (not without reason, I think) that abandoning the alliance with Russia was one of the elements that led to *WWI*.
So there are many deep layers to the belief, in Germany, that reaching out Russia as a friend and trading partner is the sensible, decent and reasonable thing to do.
In many ways it has taken a big effort by Putin to kill that. A lot of history has been uprooted.
@RobDotHutton You really do get the full range of spoiled child behaviours from today's Conservative Party, from Boris's toddler tantrums to this magnificently teenage quote.
@JAHeale New: Boris Johnson's supporters in parliament are planning to boycott' the Privileges Committee report as 'we don’t want to legitimise it'
It will embarrass Sunak and Gove though, together with every other minister who is planning to be washing their hair. It will put a very negative spin on their failure to vote.
This is precisely what you would expect: higher rents and unchanged house prices. Measures to curb BTL reduce the supply of rental properties, leading to higher rents. There is reduced supply of BTL properties but also reduced demand in equilibrium. In the market for houses to buy, there is reduced demand from landlords but also increased demand from previous renters, who at higher rents now prefer to buy. These two should offset each other and with supply and demand for houses to buy unchanged the house price is unchanged. Of course, if higher rents mean that some can't afford to rent at all, so eg they become homeless or move in with family, then the overall demand for housing will go down and house prices will fall. In this case the main beneficiary will be better off renters who can now afford to buy, and the main loser will be all other renters who will now be paying more, and especially those priced out of the rental market altogether. The only genuinely progressive policy is to build more homes.
Boris' suspension will be passed on the nod without a division I expect - as that suits everyone. It'd be funny if someone gave a NOOOE on the indicitive vote though forcing a division. Someone outside the Tories might be feeling mischievous.
The temptation to lodge an amendment saying the penalty should only be 30 days, if only to demonstrate the absurdity of the whole process, must be strong.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
Well we have examples of both on PB so it shouldn't be too onerous to come up with an answer.
In short, to start everyone off, a "North London lefty" is what used to be called a "champagne socialist" whereby they are in a position (comfortable, wealthy, food/home security) to be able to pronounce on all kinds of power to the people measures which would impact those uncomfortable, poor and not secure in their living or eating circumstances. Such an example might be advocating a £100 tax on sugar or ciggies because such things are bad for people.
A "lefty" meanwhile is usually poorer, and sees the world as being unfair and wants to help their fellow man (!) improve the lot by, for example, carting off the North London lefties to the guillotine.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
If your question is “are there anti-Semitic undertones”, I think the answer is no.
The quintessential north London lefty is Polly Toynbee.
Obviously there is/was a large Jewish component to Hampstead left-wing circles. Less so in Islington.
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.
Difficulty is the distribution of the pain. A meaningful house price correction would utterly wipe out some people, in ways that will follow them for a long long time.
It's where the chemotherapy analogy falls down; there, the person suffering all the pain also gets all the benefits. If house prices fall to a significant degree, we will all be better off but the real pain is borne by a select group of unfortunates, not all of whom are BTL speculators.
Arguably, it's a bit more like closing schools to protect wider society during a wider pandemic. Everyone benefits (by not getting sick), but for a section of society the cost is high and the benefit is low.
Those wiped out are those who can't keep up with their payments. That's unfortunate for them, but its also their own responsibility.
Those who can keep up with repayments keep their home. Even if they're theoretically in negative equity, if its not realised with a sale they can ride it out until they come out the other side.
Many have over-leveraged themselves. That's a shame. But its also their choice. All investments can go down as well as up.
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.
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.
Maybe it's the "all political lives..." header. The fact all PMs are less popular when they leave office than the absolute peak of their popularity isn't at all surprising in any way as the peak is, well, the peak.
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.
Difficulty is the distribution of the pain. A meaningful house price correction would utterly wipe out some people, in ways that will follow them for a long long time.
It's where the chemotherapy analogy falls down; there, the person suffering all the pain also gets all the benefits. If house prices fall to a significant degree, we will all be better off but the real pain is borne by a select group of unfortunates, not all of whom are BTL speculators.
Arguably, it's a bit more like closing schools to protect wider society during a wider pandemic. Everyone benefits (by not getting sick), but for a section of society the cost is high and the benefit is low.
Those wiped out are those who can't keep up with their payments. That's unfortunate for them, but its also their own responsibility.
Those who can keep up with repayments keep their home. Even if they're theoretically in negative equity, if its not realised with a sale they can ride it out until they come out the other side.
Many have over-leveraged themselves. That's a shame. But its also their choice. All investments can go down as well as up.
It’s a much easier problem in an era of full employment, as opposed to the early ‘90s recession, where many people lost their homes through no fault of their own.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
I guess on one level it just means a lefty who lives in North london but I think it has come to be shorthand on the right for a kind of mythical amalgam of the Milibands and Polly Toynbee, people who live in big houses but inexplicably don't vote Tory, who hold liberal opinions out of kilter with the received wisdom at their golf club bar, and who somehow control the nation's institutions despite thirteen years of Conservative led government. Its close relation "North London intellectual" sails dangerously close to antisemitism but I'm willing to accept that North London Lefty is innocent of this charge. While I give way to nobody in my hatred of North London, I think it is mostly a load of old bollocks. Your average Islington Labour voter is probably a black woman earning £20k a year who lives in an overcrowded council flat, not Polly Toynbee.
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.
No, you're in the same position if you end up with zero equity as a result of the sale. If you are underwater and contemplating bankruptcy your position is clearly worse. (Most) renters by definition have zero housing equity.
If you end up bankrupt then you have zero too, post-bankruptcy.
Some people do declare bankruptcy every year. That's inevitable when people get into debt, some will.
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.
Difficulty is the distribution of the pain. A meaningful house price correction would utterly wipe out some people, in ways that will follow them for a long long time.
It's where the chemotherapy analogy falls down; there, the person suffering all the pain also gets all the benefits. If house prices fall to a significant degree, we will all be better off but the real pain is borne by a select group of unfortunates, not all of whom are BTL speculators.
Arguably, it's a bit more like closing schools to protect wider society during a wider pandemic. Everyone benefits (by not getting sick), but for a section of society the cost is high and the benefit is low.
Those wiped out are those who can't keep up with their payments. That's unfortunate for them, but its also their own responsibility.
Those who can keep up with repayments keep their home. Even if they're theoretically in negative equity, if its not realised with a sale they can ride it out until they come out the other side.
Many have over-leveraged themselves. That's a shame. But its also their choice. All investments can go down as well as up.
Yes once you commit to bail out mortgage holders prives go onto the stratosphere. No incentive to be prudent.
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.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
Well we have examples of both on PB so it shouldn't be too onerous to come up with an answer.
In short, to start everyone off, a "North London lefty" is what used to be called a "champagne socialist" whereby they are in a position (comfortable, wealthy, food/home security) to be able to pronounce on all kinds of power to the people measures which would impact those uncomfortable, poor and not secure in their living or eating circumstances. Such an example might be advocating a £100 tax on sugar or ciggies because such things are bad for people.
A "lefty" meanwhile is usually poorer, and sees the world as being unfair and wants to help their fellow man (!) improve the lot by, for example, carting off the North London lefties to the guillotine.
See the Private Eye cartoon “It’s Grim Up North London” for a long running parody of Islington socialism.
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.
Difficulty is the distribution of the pain. A meaningful house price correction would utterly wipe out some people, in ways that will follow them for a long long time.
It's where the chemotherapy analogy falls down; there, the person suffering all the pain also gets all the benefits. If house prices fall to a significant degree, we will all be better off but the real pain is borne by a select group of unfortunates, not all of whom are BTL speculators.
Arguably, it's a bit more like closing schools to protect wider society during a wider pandemic. Everyone benefits (by not getting sick), but for a section of society the cost is high and the benefit is low.
Those wiped out are those who can't keep up with their payments. That's unfortunate for them, but its also their own responsibility.
Those who can keep up with repayments keep their home. Even if they're theoretically in negative equity, if its not realised with a sale they can ride it out until they come out the other side.
Many have over-leveraged themselves. That's a shame. But its also their choice. All investments can go down as well as up.
It’s a much easier problem in an era of full employment, as opposed to the early ‘90s recession, where many people lost their homes through no fault of their own.
Indeed.
But similarly the fact that we're in an era of full employment but many people can't afford a home of their own (even if they can afford to pay their landlord's mortgage) is equally absurd.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
I'm afraid it's a smeary reactionary term for a certain 'type' of lefty. Metropolitan, monied, deeply progressive, remainy to a fault, black turtle sweater, horn rims, Hampstead/Islington axis. Very good people in other words. The best.
@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.
His diaries are some of the best political diaries of the postwar era. Up there with Alan Clarke (but VERY different!)
He's a naturally fluent writer, he's a pro journalist, he knows how to tell a story, and he has a gift for the crucial telling details. He is also, as you say, surprisingly honest about his own flaws and those of others. He can be withering about Blair's narcissism and Mandelson's snobbery
But he is obviously unbalanced, unhappy, an ex alky, prone to depression, and I suspect he has deep periods of self loathing (esp after Iraq) which he externalises with bellicosity over issues like Brexit. Classic Freudian behaviour. Guilt externalised becomes aggression to others
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
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 ?
As I said in a previous post the location of the event is an aggravating factor. Anyway it was a high profile, televised, event and the individual knew or should have known that attention would be focused on him beyond the two sets of fans.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
I'm afraid it's a smeary reactionary term for a certain 'type' of lefty. Metropolitan, monied, deeply progressive, remainy to a fault, black turtle sweater, horn rims, Hampstead/Islington axis. Very good people in other words. The best.
Plus don't they all hang out at that amazing bar not far from Hampstead/Primrose Hill.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
Starmer was on the radio this morning saying he will not distribute honours when he is PM. I think that includes Rishi's resignation list.
Oh do fuck off Keir. You nominated Tom Watson to the Lords. You are in no position to throw stones over honours lists.
You’ve mentioned Watson’s nomination before, a few times. If one accepts Watson was an egregious error, he’s still only one case. The majority of Johnson’s honours list was outrageous. Should we not take the number offences into account?
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
I'm afraid it's a smeary reactionary term for a certain 'type' of lefty. Metropolitan, monied, deeply progressive, remainy to a fault, black turtle sweater, horn rims, Hampstead/Islington axis. Very good people in other words. The be
Plus don't they all hang out at that amazing bar not far from Hampstead/Primrose Hill.
You know the one...
Belsize Park. With the Sustainable Dolphinarium at the back
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
If your question is “are there anti-Semitic undertones”, I think the answer is no.
The quintessential north London lefty is Polly Toynbee.
Obviously there is/was a large Jewish component to Hampstead left-wing circles. Less so in Islington.
There are apparently those who do think there are anti-Semitic undertones hence the question.
I tried to think up innocent explanations but I was a bit baffled.
I see Topping's had a stab at explaining it to me but I didn't really understand the stuff about sugar and cigarettes.
It wasn't that convoluted a point. Try re-reading the post.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
I guess on one level it just means a lefty who lives in North london but I think it has come to be shorthand on the right for a kind of mythical amalgam of the Milibands and Polly Toynbee, people who live in big houses but inexplicably don't vote Tory, who hold liberal opinions out of kilter with the received wisdom at their golf club bar, and who somehow control the nation's institutions despite thirteen years of Conservative led government. Its close relation "North London intellectual" sails dangerously close to antisemitism but I'm willing to accept that North London Lefty is innocent of this charge. While I give way to nobody in my hatred of North London, I think it is mostly a load of old bollocks. Your average Islington Labour voter is probably a black woman earning £20k a year who lives in an overcrowded council flat, not Polly Toynbee.
Yep. To the Right a 'proper lefty' is poor and powerless (and preferably silent). Otherwise something 'wrong' has occurred. Something against the laws of nature.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
If your question is “are there anti-Semitic undertones”, I think the answer is no.
The quintessential north London lefty is Polly Toynbee.
Obviously there is/was a large Jewish component to Hampstead left-wing circles. Less so in Islington.
There are apparently those who do think there are anti-Semitic undertones hence the question.
I tried to think up innocent explanations but I was a bit baffled.
I see Topping's had a stab at explaining it to me but I didn't really understand the stuff about sugar and cigarettes.
@OnlyLivingBoy makes a very good distinction between “north London lefty” and “north London intellectual”.
The latter definitely contains an anti-Semitic whiff.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
I'm afraid it's a smeary reactionary term for a certain 'type' of lefty. Metropolitan, monied, deeply progressive, remainy to a fault, black turtle sweater, horn rims, Hampstead/Islington axis. Very good people in other words. The best.
I often think noveaus who move to Hampstead often adopt a left liberal ideology in order to fit in.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
If your question is “are there anti-Semitic undertones”, I think the answer is no.
The quintessential north London lefty is Polly Toynbee.
Obviously there is/was a large Jewish component to Hampstead left-wing circles. Less so in Islington.
There are apparently those who do think there are anti-Semitic undertones hence the question.
I tried to think up innocent explanations but I was a bit baffled.
I see Topping's had a stab at explaining it to me but I didn't really understand the stuff about sugar and cigarettes.
It wasn't that convoluted a point. Try re-reading the post.
I did, a few times over. Perhaps you overestimate me?
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
Starmer was on the radio this morning saying he will not distribute honours when he is PM. I think that includes Rishi's resignation list.
Oh do fuck off Keir. You nominated Tom Watson to the Lords. You are in no position to throw stones over honours lists.
You’ve mentioned Watson’s nomination before, a few times. If one accepts Watson was an egregious error, he’s still only one case. The majority of Johnson’s honours list was outrageous. Should we not take the number offences into account?
Everything that is now known about Tom Watson, was known by SKS at the time of his nomination. The Labour leader has already lost the moral high ground that he wishes to occupy.
This is precisely what you would expect: higher rents and unchanged house prices. Measures to curb BTL reduce the supply of rental properties, leading to higher rents. There is reduced supply of BTL properties but also reduced demand in equilibrium. In the market for houses to buy, there is reduced demand from landlords but also increased demand from previous renters, who at higher rents now prefer to buy. These two should offset each other and with supply and demand for houses to buy unchanged the house price is unchanged. Of course, if higher rents mean that some can't afford to rent at all, so eg they become homeless or move in with family, then the overall demand for housing will go down and house prices will fall. In this case the main beneficiary will be better off renters who can now afford to buy, and the main loser will be all other renters who will now be paying more, and especially those priced out of the rental market altogether. The only genuinely progressive policy is to build more homes.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
I'm afraid it's a smeary reactionary term for a certain 'type' of lefty. Metropolitan, monied, deeply progressive, remainy to a fault, black turtle sweater, horn rims, Hampstead/Islington axis. Very good people in other words. The best.
I often think noveaus who move to Hampstead often adopt a left liberal ideology in order to fit in.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
"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.
The market rate for Russian gas was a lot lower than what the rest of the world was paying for gas, as Europe has recently discovered, and also why they bought so much of it.
To be fair to Germany it does seem to have made a genuine change following the current invasion. Many impression is that individuals and organisations are unambiguously on the side of Ukraine and I think German perceptions of its role in the second World war plays into that. They see Russia behaving in the same way as Germany previously did.
With all due respect, that's not really true.
The reality is that we *all* paid lower prices for natural gas because of the Russian pipeline to Germany.
Let's take a step back, and remember that all Europe's gas markets are interconnected. There are many, many pipelines between Germany, Poland, France, Italy, etc. If you move gas from one place to another, you will pay transport fees.
Now, Russia has a number of pipes into Europe. Norway also has several, and there's a Mediterranean connector or two bringing North African gas into the continent. And there are also LNG import terminals. (Plus there a storage facilities dotted around, which have an impact on gas pricing.)
Gas is fungible. And not only that, but the major product of gas (i.e. electricity) is also fungible.
At the simplest level, you'd know if the Germans were paying less for natural gas than other countries, because their CCGTs would be massively more competitive than those in other countries, and its interconnectors would be full as it exported its cheap gas as electricity to the continent. The reality is that Germany is a net importer of electricity from its neighbours. And its CCGT load factor is only 34%! (That's dramatically worse than the UK.)
Companies - across Europe - bid on gas. Some enter into longer term agreements. Some do not.
Russia's pipelines increased the supply of gas into Europe, and lowered prices for all of us, but - other than sligtly lower transport costs as Russian gas had to travel less far - the Germans paid no less.
@RobDotHutton You really do get the full range of spoiled child behaviours from today's Conservative Party, from Boris's toddler tantrums to this magnificently teenage quote.
@JAHeale New: Boris Johnson's supporters in parliament are planning to boycott' the Privileges Committee report as 'we don’t want to legitimise it'
It will embarrass Sunak and Gove though, together with every other minister who is planning to be washing their hair. It will put a very negative spin on their failure to vote.
Tough.
Sunak definitely isn't going for a "we're doing things differently" approach. Not sure "same old, same old" is a winning strategy. He's also making it rather easy for Starmer to take the moral high ground. A position Starmer finds congenial.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
What's the difference between a normal lefty and a North London lefty? Serious question, the concept gets bandied about a lot and I don't know what it means.
No answer. Anyone else care to guess what a "North London" lefty is?
Is it anything to do with.... Tottenham Hotspur?
If your question is “are there anti-Semitic undertones”, I think the answer is no.
The quintessential north London lefty is Polly Toynbee.
Obviously there is/was a large Jewish component to Hampstead left-wing circles. Less so in Islington.
There are apparently those who do think there are anti-Semitic undertones hence the question.
I tried to think up innocent explanations but I was a bit baffled.
I see Topping's had a stab at explaining it to me but I didn't really understand the stuff about sugar and cigarettes.
@OnlyLivingBoy makes a very good distinction between “north London lefty” and “north London intellectual”.
The latter definitely contains an anti-Semitic whiff.
Aren't north London intellectuals famously Jewish themselves (eg Marx, Freud, etc)?
"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.
The market rate for Russian gas was a lot lower than what the rest of the world was paying for gas, as Europe has recently discovered, and also why they bought so much of it.
To be fair to Germany it does seem to have made a genuine change following the current invasion. Many impression is that individuals and organisations are unambiguously on the side of Ukraine and I think German perceptions of its role in the second World war plays into that. They see Russia behaving in the same way as Germany previously did.
With all due respect, that's not really true.
The reality is that we *all* paid lower prices for natural gas because of the Russian pipeline to Germany.
Let's take a step back, and remember that all Europe's gas markets are interconnected. There are many, many pipelines between Germany, Poland, France, Italy, etc. If you move gas from one place to another, you will pay transport fees.
Now, Russia has a number of pipes into Europe. Norway also has several, and there's a Mediterranean connector or two bringing North African gas into the continent. And there are also LNG import terminals. (Plus there a storage facilities dotted around, which have an impact on gas pricing.)
Gas is fungible. And not only that, but the major product of gas (i.e. electricity) is also fungible.
At the simplest level, you'd know if the Germans were paying less for natural gas than other countries, because their CCGTs would be massively more competitive than those in other countries, and its interconnectors would be full as it exported its cheap gas as electricity to the continent. The reality is that Germany is a net importer of electricity from its neighbours. And its CCGT load factor is only 34%! (That's dramatically worse than the UK.)
Companies - across Europe - bid on gas. Some enter into longer term agreements. Some do not.
Russia's pipelines increased the supply of gas into Europe, and lowered prices for all of us, but - other than sligtly lower transport costs as Russian gas had to travel less far - the Germans paid no less.
By the way, that CCGT load factor is *before* the Russian invasion of Ukraine, obviously.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
I agree with you on most things but what "sex shows"?
What seems more realistic is people reacting hysterically to age appropriate children's stories being read to children for no reason at all except that someone happens to be in drag.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
Starmer was on the radio this morning saying he will not distribute honours when he is PM. I think that includes Rishi's resignation list.
Oh do fuck off Keir. You nominated Tom Watson to the Lords. You are in no position to throw stones over honours lists.
You’ve mentioned Watson’s nomination before, a few times. If one accepts Watson was an egregious error, he’s still only one case. The majority of Johnson’s honours list was outrageous. Should we not take the number offences into account?
I think that Sunak made an error in accepting Boris's list before the Privileges Committee Report.
Boris's list is a disgrace. But Starmer presents himself as a holier than thou and trades on his DPP experience. So by his own standards, not those of Boris, his decision to elevate Watson was an utter disgrace and he should not be allowed to get away with criticising others without having this thrown back at him. It shows really poor judgment by Starmer and that is I think a key metric by which politicians should be judged.
Tory failure to vote on the report is going to be seen as another milestone in the moral collapse of the party.
Isn't the main point that Boris is gone. The Tories removed him as leader and PM and a Tory dominated parliamentary committee has now ensured he is out of Westminster altogether.
Everything else now is just picking over the bones... At some point it's going to be time for everyone to move on.
Fox is obviously struggling to come to terms with his own sexuality, the poor thing.
Interesting though that there is less enthusiasm for pride month in stores like sainsburys this time round.
Is there some sort of way measuring this, pride flags per square meter or drag artists per tv ad?
Vinted have converted their 🩷 symbol for bookmarking items into the LGBTQ colours, so one less platform on which Lozza can induge his extremely dodgy fashion sense.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
I agree with you on most things but what "sex shows"?
What seems more realistic is people reacting hysterically to age appropriate children's stories being read to children for no reason at all except that someone happens to be in drag.
It depends how you define age appropriate. Is it age appropriate to discuss bondage with 11 yr olds for example.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
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 remember Christmas Day 2020. We went to the inlaws for one hour to see them. We then went to my parents to see them, again for one hour.
No one else was there at the time of either visit. Even then I suspected what we'd done wasn't quite allowed (I couldn't really remember) and it was the most subdued Christmas ever.
Seems I should've just had the usual massive family gathering and not given a hoot.......
Tory failure to vote on the report is going to be seen as another milestone in the moral collapse of the party.
Isn't the main point that Boris is gone. The Tories removed him as leader and PM and a Tory dominated parliamentary committee has now ensured he is out of Westminster altogether.
Everything else now is just picking over the bones... At some point it's going to be time for everyone to move on.
Yes, thank goodness that we're unlikely to hear from or about BJ ever again, and he has no platforms through which he can exert his baleful influence over the public sphere.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
Starmer was on the radio this morning saying he will not distribute honours when he is PM. I think that includes Rishi's resignation list.
Oh do fuck off Keir. You nominated Tom Watson to the Lords. You are in no position to throw stones over honours lists.
You’ve mentioned Watson’s nomination before, a few times. If one accepts Watson was an egregious error, he’s still only one case. The majority of Johnson’s honours list was outrageous. Should we not take the number offences into account?
I think that Sunak made an error in accepting Boris's list before the Privileges Committee Report.
Boris's list is a disgrace. But Starmer presents himself as a holier than thou and trades on his DPP experience. So by his own standards, not those of Boris, his decision to elevate Watson was an utter disgrace and he should not be allowed to get away with criticising others without having this thrown back at him. It shows really poor judgment by Starmer and that is I think a key metric by which politicians should be judged.
Genuine question, what’s your view on the suggestion that Starmer let Jimmy Savile off when he was DPP? Interested in how the process works at that level.
It's almost like a sense of desperation is creeping in as far as the SNP are concerned, as they head back to the 27% they polled in 1999 at the first Scottish parliament election.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
I agree with you on most things but what "sex shows"?
What seems more realistic is people reacting hysterically to age appropriate children's stories being read to children for no reason at all except that someone happens to be in drag.
We took our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh festival a few years ago. It was lovely.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
Starmer was on the radio this morning saying he will not distribute honours when he is PM. I think that includes Rishi's resignation list.
Oh do fuck off Keir. You nominated Tom Watson to the Lords. You are in no position to throw stones over honours lists.
You’ve mentioned Watson’s nomination before, a few times. If one accepts Watson was an egregious error, he’s still only one case. The majority of Johnson’s honours list was outrageous. Should we not take the number offences into account?
I think that Sunak made an error in accepting Boris's list before the Privileges Committee Report.
Boris's list is a disgrace. But Starmer presents himself as a holier than thou and trades on his DPP experience. So by his own standards, not those of Boris, his decision to elevate Watson was an utter disgrace and he should not be allowed to get away with criticising others without having this thrown back at him. It shows really poor judgment by Starmer and that is I think a key metric by which politicians should be judged.
I think there are several warning signs that SKS will be a poor PM sadly. One of the reasons I'm expecting Labour to be a one term government from 2024 to 2029.
I'm beginning to wonder if some of these right wing populists aren't very nice people at all.
The whole “Pride Month” in the US, has blown up in quite spectacular fashion, with a number of riots, and large corporates trying to distance themselves from the extremists on both sides.
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
Because the Republican Party, unable to offer any solutions to America’s problems, has deliberately ramped up culture wars and lies about Pride Month.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who proposed the legislation in California, that proposes to remove children from their parents, into the care of the State, if the parents disagree with the gender transition process of pre-pubescent children.
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
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?
I'm not saying he's hard left.
I'm saying he's mainstream Labour left. He's certainly not a Blairite or one-nation Tory.
Now, you might well be up for that and, indeed, you might rather want and like it.
I'm simply warning any soft Tories tempted by him to be careful what they wish for.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
Because he has surrounded himself with people who hate the left of the Labour party, he keeps making sure that those on the left of the Labour party are deselected and every u-turn or change to policies he originally proposed is to make them more palatable to the centre / right of the electorate and not the left of the electorate (who actually liked much of the 2017 and 2019 Labour manifesto from a policy point of view, and mostly disliked Corbyn / wanted Brexit "sorted).
I voted for Starmer in the leadership election (via my union membership) because I also thought he was a relatively left wing Labour MP who wanted Corbynism that could be sold to your nan or the bloke on the street etc. and that's what his original pitch was. He has not led the Labour party in that manner.
Tory failure to vote on the report is going to be seen as another milestone in the moral collapse of the party.
Isn't the main point that Boris is gone. The Tories removed him as leader and PM and a Tory dominated parliamentary committee has now ensured he is out of Westminster altogether.
Everything else now is just picking over the bones... At some point it's going to be time for everyone to move on.
Yes, thank goodness that we're unlikely to hear from or about BJ ever again, and he has no platforms through which he can exert his baleful influence over the public sphere.
Well you'll still hear from him through his columns but he's away from the levers of power and as time goes on I suspect his influence will wane more and more particularly if he joins up with Farage, Tice and Lozza on the nutty fringe lol...
In a few years time he'll probably cut a rather pathetic figure howling at the moon...
@RobDotHutton You really do get the full range of spoiled child behaviours from today's Conservative Party, from Boris's toddler tantrums to this magnificently teenage quote.
@JAHeale New: Boris Johnson's supporters in parliament are planning to boycott' the Privileges Committee report as 'we don’t want to legitimise it'
It will embarrass Sunak and Gove though, together with every other minister who is planning to be washing their hair. It will put a very negative spin on their failure to vote.
Tough.
Sunak definitely isn't going for a "we're doing things differently" approach. Not sure "same old, same old" is a winning strategy. He's also making it rather easy for Starmer to take the moral high ground. A position Starmer finds congenial.
Sunak's problem seems to be that he served his political apprenticeship in the shadow of the Big Dog.
I'm not sure that he has picked up the knowledge or skills to do things differently to Boris. He's not as shameless about it, which is one of the reasons he gets stuck, but he sometimes the impression that he would like to get away with the same things as his mentor.
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 remember Christmas Day 2020. We went to the inlaws for one hour to see them. We then went to my parents to see them, again for one hour.
No one else was there at the time of either visit. Even then I suspected what we'd done wasn't quite allowed (I couldn't really remember) and it was the most subdued Christmas ever.
Seems I should've just had the usual massive family gathering and not given a hoot.......
Still dont understand the anger from people who let their relatives die alone. The fact they let their relatives die alone says everything about them rather than the govt. What sort of people let their loved ones die alone.
Tory failure to vote on the report is going to be seen as another milestone in the moral collapse of the party.
Isn't the main point that Boris is gone. The Tories removed him as leader and PM and a Tory dominated parliamentary committee has now ensured he is out of Westminster altogether.
Everything else now is just picking over the bones... At some point it's going to be time for everyone to move on.
I suspect that once the Cons (not just Johnson) have been kicked out of office most people will be inclined to move on. Others, often for very personal reasons, will carry this to the grave. It amazes me how many Cons can't grasp just how bad this whole thing was. Instead, as today, Mr Sunak and his chums just keep sticking their foot in the mess and spreading it all over the shag-pile
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?
I'm not saying he's hard left.
I'm saying he's mainstream Labour left. He's certainly not a Blairite or one-nation Tory.
Now, you might well be up for that and, indeed, you might rather want and like it.
I'm simply warning any soft Tories tempted by him to be careful what they wish for.
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?
Out of curiosity, were such debts written off through bankruptcy (IVAs weren't a thing then?) or did people carry the liabilities for years, and struggle to service them despite being obliged to do so?
Fox is obviously struggling to come to terms with his own sexuality, the poor thing.
Interesting though that there is less enthusiasm for pride month in stores like sainsburys this time round.
Is there some sort of way measuring this, pride flags per square meter or drag artists per tv ad?
Vinted have converted their 🩷 symbol for bookmarking items into the LGBTQ colours, so one less platform on which Lozza can induge his extremely dodgy fashion sense.
A whole other dimension to the phrase “Flag Shagging”
"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.
That doesn’t explain people like Schröder, nor the condescending attitude towards the countries between modern Germany and modern Russia.
"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.
The market rate for Russian gas was a lot lower than what the rest of the world was paying for gas, as Europe has recently discovered, and also why they bought so much of it.
To be fair to Germany it does seem to have made a genuine change following the current invasion. Many impression is that individuals and organisations are unambiguously on the side of Ukraine and I think German perceptions of its role in the second World war plays into that. They see Russia behaving in the same way as Germany previously did.
With all due respect, that's not really true.
The reality is that we *all* paid lower prices for natural gas because of the Russian pipeline to Germany.
Let's take a step back, and remember that all Europe's gas markets are interconnected. There are many, many pipelines between Germany, Poland, France, Italy, etc. If you move gas from one place to another, you will pay transport fees.
Now, Russia has a number of pipes into Europe. Norway also has several, and there's a Mediterranean connector or two bringing North African gas into the continent. And there are also LNG import terminals. (Plus there a storage facilities dotted around, which have an impact on gas pricing.)
Gas is fungible. And not only that, but the major product of gas (i.e. electricity) is also fungible.
At the simplest level, you'd know if the Germans were paying less for natural gas than other countries, because their CCGTs would be massively more competitive than those in other countries, and its interconnectors would be full as it exported its cheap gas as electricity to the continent. The reality is that Germany is a net importer of electricity from its neighbours. And its CCGT load factor is only 34%! (That's dramatically worse than the UK.)
Companies - across Europe - bid on gas. Some enter into longer term agreements. Some do not.
Russia's pipelines increased the supply of gas into Europe, and lowered prices for all of us, but - other than sligtly lower transport costs as Russian gas had to travel less far - the Germans paid no less.
I wasn't suggesting Germany was paying a uniquely low price for its Russian gas but it had a vested interest in keeping those taps on and being helpful to a government that politicised its gas supply well before the invasion. This also showed up in German resistance to EU moves to diversify supply.
I don't think Russian gas was entirely fungible given Europe was paying much lower prices for gas, compared with say Japan. Now the Russian supply has been switched off prices are more comparable.
Ollie Robinson said yesterday that England wanted to give Australia a target they would think was possible to get, which suggests around 350 rather than the usual 420.
Tory failure to vote on the report is going to be seen as another milestone in the moral collapse of the party.
Isn't the main point that Boris is gone. The Tories removed him as leader and PM and a Tory dominated parliamentary committee has now ensured he is out of Westminster altogether.
Everything else now is just picking over the bones... At some point it's going to be time for everyone to move on.
Yes, thank goodness that we're unlikely to hear from or about BJ ever again, and he has no platforms through which he can exert his baleful influence over the public sphere.
Well you'll still hear from him through his columns but he's away from the levers of power and as time goes on I suspect his influence will wane more and more particularly if he joins up with Farage, Tice and Lozza on the nutty fringe lol...
In a few years time he probably cut a rather pathetic figure howling at the moon...
Interesting that in the us there now seems to be nutty fringes on both the democrat and republican side.
Prediction: The Labour energy policy is going to be a big millstone in the next GE, unless they row back.
I want the Tories out, but this is exactly the sort of issue that will be seized upon and exploited as suggesting they are going to increase unemployment and costs.
They will row back, because Starmer wants to win, but you absolutely won't know what you're really getting until he's safely in office.
A surprisingly large number of people seem to have bought the idea he's some sort of pragmatic managerial one-nation type, rather than the solid solid North London Leftie I think he actually is - yes, less Leftie than Jeremy Corbyn but that's not saying much - which I find remarkable.
Because he has surrounded himself with people who hate the left of the Labour party, he keeps making sure that those on the left of the Labour party are deselected and every u-turn or change to policies he originally proposed is to make them more palatable to the centre / right of the electorate and not the left of the electorate (who actually liked much of the 2017 and 2019 Labour manifesto from a policy point of view, and mostly disliked Corbyn / wanted Brexit "sorted).
I voted for Starmer in the leadership election (via my union membership) because I also thought he was a relatively left wing Labour MP who wanted Corbynism that could be sold to your nan or the bloke on the street etc. and that's what his original pitch was. He has not led the Labour party in that manner.
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 remember Christmas Day 2020. We went to the inlaws for one hour to see them. We then went to my parents to see them, again for one hour.
No one else was there at the time of either visit. Even then I suspected what we'd done wasn't quite allowed (I couldn't really remember) and it was the most subdued Christmas ever.
Seems I should've just had the usual massive family gathering and not given a hoot.......
Still dont understand the anger from people who let their relatives die alone. The fact they let their relatives die alone says everything about them rather than the govt. What sort of people let their loved ones die alone.
My mother left a recuperative care home a few months before lockdown. Short of breaking them out (which I know some people did indeed do) I think you would have been forbidden under threat of arrest from trying to see, still less remove them.
But as to your point what kind of an idiot obeyed lockdown then yes absolutely. They obeyed it and would happily have another one if the government thought it a good idea.
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.
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.
Starmer wants to increase tax, nationalise utilities and assets, ban and further regulate fossil fuels, launch a war on private education, and take identity politics even further ...and that's just what we know about so far.
You don't have to take my word for it that he's a mainstream left-winger - just look at his programme.
Comments
It’s turned from a celebration of gay rights into a movement that, to its opponents, appears to be aimed specifically at children, prompting a backlash from more socially conservative parents.
It's where the chemotherapy analogy falls down; there, the person suffering all the pain also gets all the benefits. If house prices fall to a significant degree, we will all be better off but the real pain is borne by a select group of unfortunates, not all of whom are BTL speculators.
Arguably, it's a bit more like closing schools to protect wider society during a wider pandemic. Everyone benefits (by not getting sick), but for a section of society the cost is high and the benefit is low.
You really do get the full range of spoiled child behaviours from today's Conservative Party, from Boris's toddler tantrums to this magnificently teenage quote.
@JAHeale
New: Boris Johnson's supporters in parliament are planning to boycott' the Privileges Committee report as 'we don’t want to legitimise it'
https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1670774926179987463
To be fair to Germany it does seem to have made a genuine change following the current invasion. Many impression is that individuals and organisations are unambiguously on the side of Ukraine and I think German perceptions of its role in the second World war plays into that. They see Russia behaving in the same way as Germany previously did.
There is a school of thought which believes that young people are not treated appropriately when they seek help on issues surrounding gender in the wider context of their mental health which evidently Fox ascribes to.
Some argue (not without reason, I think) that abandoning the alliance with Russia was one of the elements that led to *WWI*.
So there are many deep layers to the belief, in Germany, that reaching out Russia as a friend and trading partner is the sensible, decent and reasonable thing to do.
In many ways it has taken a big effort by Putin to kill that. A lot of history has been uprooted.
Tough.
Of course, if higher rents mean that some can't afford to rent at all, so eg they become homeless or move in with family, then the overall demand for housing will go down and house prices will fall. In this case the main beneficiary will be better off renters who can now afford to buy, and the main loser will be all other renters who will now be paying more, and especially those priced out of the rental market altogether.
The only genuinely progressive policy is to build more homes.
In short, to start everyone off, a "North London lefty" is what used to be called a "champagne socialist" whereby they are in a position (comfortable, wealthy, food/home security) to be able to pronounce on all kinds of power to the people measures which would impact those uncomfortable, poor and not secure in their living or eating circumstances. Such an example might be advocating a £100 tax on sugar or ciggies because such things are bad for people.
A "lefty" meanwhile is usually poorer, and sees the world as being unfair and wants to help their fellow man (!) improve the lot by, for example, carting off the North London lefties to the guillotine.
The quintessential north London lefty is Polly Toynbee.
Obviously there is/was a large Jewish component to Hampstead left-wing circles. Less so in Islington.
Those who can keep up with repayments keep their home. Even if they're theoretically in negative equity, if its not realised with a sale they can ride it out until they come out the other side.
Many have over-leveraged themselves. That's a shame. But its also their choice. All investments can go down as well as up.
While I give way to nobody in my hatred of North London, I think it is mostly a load of old bollocks. Your average Islington Labour voter is probably a black woman earning £20k a year who lives in an overcrowded council flat, not Polly Toynbee.
Some people do declare bankruptcy every year. That's inevitable when people get into debt, some will.
But similarly the fact that we're in an era of full employment but many people can't afford a home of their own (even if they can afford to pay their landlord's mortgage) is equally absurd.
The whole situation is absurd.
He's a naturally fluent writer, he's a pro journalist, he knows how to tell a story, and he has a gift for the crucial telling details. He is also, as you say, surprisingly honest about his own flaws and those of others. He can be withering about Blair's narcissism and Mandelson's snobbery
But he is obviously unbalanced, unhappy, an ex alky, prone to depression, and I suspect he has deep periods of self loathing (esp after Iraq) which he externalises with bellicosity over issues like Brexit. Classic Freudian behaviour. Guilt externalised becomes aggression to others
You know the one...
It wasn’t the Republican Party who decided that sex shows in front of primary school children were now somehow okay, so long as the performers were in drag.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1669469433025159169
The latter definitely contains an anti-Semitic whiff.
Or am I mishearing
https://twitter.com/realtuckfrumper/status/1670297301255065600
The reality is that we *all* paid lower prices for natural gas because of the Russian pipeline to Germany.
Let's take a step back, and remember that all Europe's gas markets are interconnected. There are many, many pipelines between Germany, Poland, France, Italy, etc. If you move gas from one place to another, you will pay transport fees.
Now, Russia has a number of pipes into Europe. Norway also has several, and there's a Mediterranean connector or two bringing North African gas into the continent. And there are also LNG import terminals. (Plus there a storage facilities dotted around, which have an impact on gas pricing.)
Gas is fungible. And not only that, but the major product of gas (i.e. electricity) is also fungible.
At the simplest level, you'd know if the Germans were paying less for natural gas than other countries, because their CCGTs would be massively more competitive than those in other countries, and its interconnectors would be full as it exported its cheap gas as electricity to the continent. The reality is that Germany is a net importer of electricity from its neighbours. And its CCGT load factor is only 34%! (That's dramatically worse than the UK.)
Companies - across Europe - bid on gas. Some enter into longer term agreements. Some do not.
Russia's pipelines increased the supply of gas into Europe, and lowered prices for all of us, but - other than sligtly lower transport costs as Russian gas had to travel less far - the Germans paid no less.
https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1596644335625420800?s=20
What seems more realistic is people reacting hysterically to age appropriate children's stories being read to children for no reason at all except that someone happens to be in drag.
Boris's list is a disgrace. But Starmer presents himself as a holier than thou and trades on his DPP experience. So by his own standards, not those of Boris, his decision to elevate Watson was an utter disgrace and he should not be allowed to get away with criticising others without having this thrown back at him. It shows really poor judgment by Starmer and that is I think a key metric by which politicians should be judged.
Everything else now is just picking over the bones... At some point it's going to be time for everyone to move on.
Vinted have converted their 🩷 symbol for bookmarking items into the LGBTQ colours, so one less platform on which Lozza can induge his extremely dodgy fashion sense.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1666142149732192257
(a) that happened without the parents consent
and
(b) that is a common occurance across the US
is a retard.
Tipping is normal in America for performers.
We went to the inlaws for one hour to see them.
We then went to my parents to see them, again for one hour.
No one else was there at the time of either visit.
Even then I suspected what we'd done wasn't quite allowed (I couldn't really remember) and it was the most subdued Christmas ever.
Seems I should've just had the usual massive family gathering and not given a hoot.......
At least on the regional vote.
I was taken to Hawaii as a child and saw similar performances by Hawaiian Hula girls in grass bikinis. Somehow I doubt you object to that?
I'm saying he's mainstream Labour left. He's certainly not a Blairite or one-nation Tory.
Now, you might well be up for that and, indeed, you might rather want and like it.
I'm simply warning any soft Tories tempted by him to be careful what they wish for.
I voted for Starmer in the leadership election (via my union membership) because I also thought he was a relatively left wing Labour MP who wanted Corbynism that could be sold to your nan or the bloke on the street etc. and that's what his original pitch was. He has not led the Labour party in that manner.
In a few years time he'll probably cut a rather pathetic figure howling at the moon...
I'm not sure that he has picked up the knowledge or skills to do things differently to Boris. He's not as shameless about it, which is one of the reasons he gets stuck, but he sometimes the impression that he would like to get away with the same things as his mentor.
I don't think Russian gas was entirely fungible given Europe was paying much lower prices for gas, compared with say Japan. Now the Russian supply has been switched off prices are more comparable.
But as to your point what kind of an idiot obeyed lockdown then yes absolutely. They obeyed it and would happily have another one if the government thought it a good idea.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65952298
If anyone wants yet another reason to abolish the Met, the failure to uncover a flippin’ Christmas Party invitation is one.
You don't have to take my word for it that he's a mainstream left-winger - just look at his programme.