Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

It’s the housing costs, stupid? – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Hurt ripples in wake of Indigenous Voice vote

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67114612

    BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....

    How do you get that from reading the article ?

    Or did you note only the reported comments which offended you ?
    None of it "offends" me, as I have no horse in the race.

    But the balance is laughable.

    "Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued the Voice vote could unite Australia. But others remained convinced such a proposal would divide it. It also faced criticism from a bloc of Indigenous people who believed it wouldn't be powerful enough. Others saw it is a symbolic gesture and believed that money could be better spent on immediate solutions."

    So, basically its too weak...

    vs

    Outside a polling booth on Saturday, the 76-year-old said he was not opposed to the idea of the Voice - he just wanted to keep it out of the nation's founding document..."I voted No....contested claim that the referendum could make Indigenous people "more equal" than other Australians.... "I've been disappointed in the No campaign to be honest,....there's a part of me that hopes the Yes vote wins because I think there are so many people who are emotionally tied to this."

    But it "contested" claim, followed up the No is actually a Yes and the No campaign has been dishonest.
    It's a report from Darwin - which is the smallest of Australia's capitals, and has a disproportionately high indigenous population compared with the rest of the country.
    So you ought not to be massively surprised that it focuses on the reaction of the indigenous population to a referendum which was about them.

    And I think you have spun the first paragraph in a way that doesn't bear analysis.
    I got an email from a friend is Australia about his vote. Which was No. The reasons were a mix of a thin-end-of-the-wedge for what he sees as grifters using the Indigenous as their “in”, concern the politicians would expand on it as a way of end running democracy and dislike of the idea of writing difference into law.

    He’d probably map to an Orange Book Lib Dem, in the U.K.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,903
    Maybe HMG could ask them to come and build the railway here. You know, like in India.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,278
    Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in four of six key swing states ahead of next year’s US presidential election, new polling for The Sunday Telegraph shows.

    In the latest suggestion Mr Trump’s early campaign has resonated in battleground states, the research finds he leads in a head-to-head battle in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida, and is tied with Mr Biden in Michigan.

    Mr Trump, who is the runaway favourite for the Republican nomination, is also considered to be the strongest leader of the two men and to best understand the problems facing America in all six states, including Pennsylvania, where Mr Biden has an overall lead.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/15/trump-leads-biden-in-four-of-six-battleground-states/
  • Options
    .

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

    Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

    What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

    No, it really doesn't.

    As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.

    Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
    No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
    But it is our attitudes to property and housing which have damaged the economy.
    In many areas of the country, the dominant spending out of people’s income is housing.

    Whether rented or paying the mortgage.

    If the cost of housing halved, millions of people would have more money to spend on other stuff. They could even afford to pay more tax, if that’s what floats your boat.
    And that means moving the supply-demand balance to a point where the market price isn't "every last penny you have and then some".

    That's going to take a lot of homes, and probably a not-entirely-commercial body to build them.
    The solution is not one body (as that will be in hoc to the NIMBYs and politicians too) or our oligopoly of bodies. Its having thousands of bodies capable of building.

    Build the infrastructure, zone for housing, remove planning and let people fill in the gaps (taxing via LVT land ownership so nobody buys the entire zone).

    Then have individual developers building one house at a time, or a few at a time, as fast as they can rather than one developer leisurely over years putting them up as a guaranteed income stream.
  • Options

    Taz said:

    .

    Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.

    So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.

    The hyper caution is becoming too much now.

    Pulling it from the manifesto isn't the same as not doing anything once elected. The Tories are going after them. They have legally doubled the party spend limit (so must have the money) and will throw everything they have at stopping Labour.

    And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.

    So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.
    Those dastardly Tories. Doing their job and challenging the oppositions promises and commitments.

    If only labour had the courage of their convictions to stand by what they believe in and respond to any challenge robustly.
    I'm not voting Labour. But I understand Starmer's problem. The Tories - and their spiv owners - are so desperate to keep Labour out that they will say and do anything.
    But (to take the question that the Conservatives seemed to stop thinking about a while back... Maybe under Dave in 2015.)

    Suppose you get what you want. What happens after that?

    Imagine the Conservatives do have to come up with government for the period 2024-8. After the dopamine rush of victory subsides, what the hell do they do about the problems they have inherited from themselves?

    It's going to be hard enough for Labour, and they have at least a bit of freedom to ditch things Sunak has said and done.
    What is the Tories' plan? Tortuga...
    That's not a real plan, though. Even those who want libertarian freedom to make oodles of cash want their property protected. And some cushioning if the worst happens to them. And before you know it, you're back at some version of Butskellism.
  • Options

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,967

    Afghanistan could easily still get high 200s. Chasing 250+ always is tricky.

    Particularly when you compare the scoring rates between seam and spin. England have way more seam to get through than Afghanistan does.

    And another 4 against Topley.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 19,310
    edited October 2023

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Occupancy nationwide is north of 99%, so if its north of 95% in London then that is odd.

    We need to get occupancy down below 90% nationwide, but by having sufficient supply, not restricted supply.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    Carnyx said:

    Maybe HMG could ask them to come and build the railway here. You know, like in India.
    They’d ask for what they do in Africa - fence off the whole line, evict all the people living inside it without any compensation and smash the fuck out of anything in Maude that gets in their way.

    If you could give me the power to build a railway on the basis that, if it needs to go through Stonehenge, I get to make aggregate - no questions asked, I could do you a nice cheap railway.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,474
    MattW said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Build more houses.
    Abolish leasehold - you'll never get people to buy flats until you do.
    Stop propping up the market with stamp duty holidays, "help to buy" etc which only inflates the market.

    Servicing the cost of putting a roof over your head destroys disposable income, destroys investment, sucks all the money out of the economy and gives it over to rent-seeking parasites, instead of being invested in productive capital.

    It really is that simple.

    I'd basically agree with those (though leasehold flats do seem to sell), and add some more to reform the market further, plus generate greater availability in places to build and places to live.

    I think Mr Starmer has quite a lot of that about right, but it will take longer than he hopes. It always does. His goals seem reasonably modest, which will help. I predict that little will seem to be achieved in 1-2 years, but more than expected in 5-7 years. He needs 2 terms.

    I also note from the 2021-22 English Housing Survey:

    1.83 The overall rate of under-occupation in England in 2021-22 was 39% with around 9.3 million households living in under-occupied homes (i.e. with two or more spare bedrooms), Annex Table 1.25.

    1.84 Under-occupation was much more prevalent among owner occupiers than in the rented sectors. Over half (53%) of owner occupied households (8.3 million households) were under-occupied in 2021-22 compared with 15% of private rented (684,000) and 10% of social rented (408,000) households.

    1.85 The overall proportion of under-occupied households among owner occupiers in England increased between 2011-12 and 2021-22 from 49% (7.0 million households) to 53% (8.3 million households). No change was seen among renters over the same time period,

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-headline-report/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-headline-report

    So I'd seek to promote lodgers more, and eg encourage people with Pieds a Terre flats to take a weekday lodging rather than taking up a whole flat, for example.
    You can stuff having some stranger wandering about my house.
  • Options

    Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in four of six key swing states ahead of next year’s US presidential election, new polling for The Sunday Telegraph shows.

    In the latest suggestion Mr Trump’s early campaign has resonated in battleground states, the research finds he leads in a head-to-head battle in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida, and is tied with Mr Biden in Michigan.

    Mr Trump, who is the runaway favourite for the Republican nomination, is also considered to be the strongest leader of the two men and to best understand the problems facing America in all six states, including Pennsylvania, where Mr Biden has an overall lead.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/15/trump-leads-biden-in-four-of-six-battleground-states/

    Well America's biggest problem is Trump, so he perhaps has an unfair advantage in terms of understanding.

    It will come down to the economy and household finances.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,654

    Leon said:

    The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

    Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

    What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

    No, it really doesn't.

    As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.

    Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
    Leon reads extreme right sources and regurgitates their nonsense here. The conspiratorial right in the US are convinced that there will be multiple Hamas attacks in the US and elsewhere, so everyone needs to buy guns and flee the cities: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/trump-israel-truth-post-hamas-attack-rcna119753 and https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/israel-hamas-conflict-trump-maga-sleeper-cell-border-threat-1234849311/ This is complete bollocks.

    It also ties in with a more general belief in a coming clash of civilisations that mixes Christian evangelical eschatological fantasies with racists’ desire for a race war. (See also Great Replacement Theory.) All the reposting of horrific pictures and descriptions of atrocities (some true, some false) connect to this same philosophy of rousing the “sheeple” from their slumber. Some do so deliberately, some are just gullible because of their prejudices.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,903

    Carnyx said:

    Maybe HMG could ask them to come and build the railway here. You know, like in India.
    They’d ask for what they do in Africa - fence off the whole line, evict all the people living inside it without any compensation and smash the fuck out of anything in Maude that gets in their way.

    If you could give me the power to build a railway on the basis that, if it needs to go through Stonehenge, I get to make aggregate - no questions asked, I could do you a nice cheap railway.
    Maude?
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,589
    Has anybody else gotten The Light thru the letterbox? It's...how can I put this? Incredible?

    :)

    https://thelightpaper.co.uk/
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,474

    .

    EPG said:

    eek said:

    EPG said:

    In broad terms, people who were 25-35 used to be more likely to be married, have an extra five years' work under their belts, and maybe even got handed a council house by the government at a significant discount. That's not replicable. More single under-35s equals more renters, it really is that simple, but they will eventually buy once they settle.

    Not if prices are at 5-7 times anverage earnings they won’t.
    They will. It is a plain demographic fact. Some owner-occupier will pass on, and in broad historical terms they get replaced by a different owner-occcupier, and in some eras like today even BTLs get replaced by owner occupiers. Then the price is simply determined by the negotiating power of each side (if I know you can get a cheap mortgage, I hold out for 5-7x, otherwise not so much).
    Sorry but this is a disgraceful attitude normally only shown by HYUFD. Waiting until people pass on doesn't address the housing crisis. If people are dying in their 80s or 90s then should we expect people to be their children in their 60s or 70s before they are able to get a house of their own?

    People should be able to afford a home at the start of their career, and before they have children, not the end of their lives only.

    As for BTLs getting replaced by owner occupiers currently - good! - but its little and late for people who have been paying their BTL landlords mortgage for years as they couldn't get a deposit for one of their own due to insanely price rises.

    Finally your "holding out" for more is precisely the problem. There needs to be excess supply all the time, so those who "hold out" simply find nobody is interested. Buyers should be in a position to say yes I could afford 7x, but why should I pay it if someone else is only asking for 3x as a healthy market rate.
    You miss the point as ever, he can only get that if there are none at 3x. It is supply and demand like everything else you fool. If average pay was 2OK and you could get 35K would you be stupid enough to say no thanks I should get the average I will go take the 20K.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Maybe HMG could ask them to come and build the railway here. You know, like in India.
    They’d ask for what they do in Africa - fence off the whole line, evict all the people living inside it without any compensation and smash the fuck out of anything in Maude that gets in their way.

    If you could give me the power to build a railway on the basis that, if it needs to go through Stonehenge, I get to make aggregate - no questions asked, I could do you a nice cheap railway.
    Maude?
    Not sure what auto-incorrect did there. Or is it Vanilla?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,474
    malcolmg said:

    .

    EPG said:

    eek said:

    EPG said:

    In broad terms, people who were 25-35 used to be more likely to be married, have an extra five years' work under their belts, and maybe even got handed a council house by the government at a significant discount. That's not replicable. More single under-35s equals more renters, it really is that simple, but they will eventually buy once they settle.

    Not if prices are at 5-7 times anverage earnings they won’t.
    They will. It is a plain demographic fact. Some owner-occupier will pass on, and in broad historical terms they get replaced by a different owner-occcupier, and in some eras like today even BTLs get replaced by owner occupiers. Then the price is simply determined by the negotiating power of each side (if I know you can get a cheap mortgage, I hold out for 5-7x, otherwise not so much).
    Sorry but this is a disgraceful attitude normally only shown by HYUFD. Waiting until people pass on doesn't address the housing crisis. If people are dying in their 80s or 90s then should we expect people to be their children in their 60s or 70s before they are able to get a house of their own?

    People should be able to afford a home at the start of their career, and before they have children, not the end of their lives only.

    As for BTLs getting replaced by owner occupiers currently - good! - but its little and late for people who have been paying their BTL landlords mortgage for years as they couldn't get a deposit for one of their own due to insanely price rises.

    Finally your "holding out" for more is precisely the problem. There needs to be excess supply all the time, so those who "hold out" simply find nobody is interested. Buyers should be in a position to say yes I could afford 7x, but why should I pay it if someone else is only asking for 3x as a healthy market rate.
    You miss the point as ever, he can only get that if there are none at 3x. It is supply and demand like everything else you fool. If average pay was 2OK and you could get 35K would you be stupid enough to say no thanks I should get the average I will go take the 20K.
    PS even thicker , nobody deserves anything , they have to fend for themselves and earn it.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,903

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Maybe HMG could ask them to come and build the railway here. You know, like in India.
    They’d ask for what they do in Africa - fence off the whole line, evict all the people living inside it without any compensation and smash the fuck out of anything in Maude that gets in their way.

    If you could give me the power to build a railway on the basis that, if it needs to go through Stonehenge, I get to make aggregate - no questions asked, I could do you a nice cheap railway.
    Maude?
    Not sure what auto-incorrect did there. Or is it Vanilla?
    Not a reference to Tennyson originally? Or a Victorian dye?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,474

    Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.

    So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.

    The hyper caution is becoming too much now.

    Guaranteed he will do little, he is an empty suit.
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,680
    edited October 2023

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will we tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
  • Options
    malcolmg said:

    .

    EPG said:

    eek said:

    EPG said:

    In broad terms, people who were 25-35 used to be more likely to be married, have an extra five years' work under their belts, and maybe even got handed a council house by the government at a significant discount. That's not replicable. More single under-35s equals more renters, it really is that simple, but they will eventually buy once they settle.

    Not if prices are at 5-7 times anverage earnings they won’t.
    They will. It is a plain demographic fact. Some owner-occupier will pass on, and in broad historical terms they get replaced by a different owner-occcupier, and in some eras like today even BTLs get replaced by owner occupiers. Then the price is simply determined by the negotiating power of each side (if I know you can get a cheap mortgage, I hold out for 5-7x, otherwise not so much).
    Sorry but this is a disgraceful attitude normally only shown by HYUFD. Waiting until people pass on doesn't address the housing crisis. If people are dying in their 80s or 90s then should we expect people to be their children in their 60s or 70s before they are able to get a house of their own?

    People should be able to afford a home at the start of their career, and before they have children, not the end of their lives only.

    As for BTLs getting replaced by owner occupiers currently - good! - but its little and late for people who have been paying their BTL landlords mortgage for years as they couldn't get a deposit for one of their own due to insanely price rises.

    Finally your "holding out" for more is precisely the problem. There needs to be excess supply all the time, so those who "hold out" simply find nobody is interested. Buyers should be in a position to say yes I could afford 7x, but why should I pay it if someone else is only asking for 3x as a healthy market rate.
    You miss the point as ever, he can only get that if there are none at 3x. It is supply and demand like everything else you fool. If average pay was 2OK and you could get 35K would you be stupid enough to say no thanks I should get the average I will go take the 20K.
    malcolmg said:

    .

    EPG said:

    eek said:

    EPG said:

    In broad terms, people who were 25-35 used to be more likely to be married, have an extra five years' work under their belts, and maybe even got handed a council house by the government at a significant discount. That's not replicable. More single under-35s equals more renters, it really is that simple, but they will eventually buy once they settle.

    Not if prices are at 5-7 times anverage earnings they won’t.
    They will. It is a plain demographic fact. Some owner-occupier will pass on, and in broad historical terms they get replaced by a different owner-occcupier, and in some eras like today even BTLs get replaced by owner occupiers. Then the price is simply determined by the negotiating power of each side (if I know you can get a cheap mortgage, I hold out for 5-7x, otherwise not so much).
    Sorry but this is a disgraceful attitude normally only shown by HYUFD. Waiting until people pass on doesn't address the housing crisis. If people are dying in their 80s or 90s then should we expect people to be their children in their 60s or 70s before they are able to get a house of their own?

    People should be able to afford a home at the start of their career, and before they have children, not the end of their lives only.

    As for BTLs getting replaced by owner occupiers currently - good! - but its little and late for people who have been paying their BTL landlords mortgage for years as they couldn't get a deposit for one of their own due to insanely price rises.

    Finally your "holding out" for more is precisely the problem. There needs to be excess supply all the time, so those who "hold out" simply find nobody is interested. Buyers should be in a position to say yes I could afford 7x, but why should I pay it if someone else is only asking for 3x as a healthy market rate.
    You miss the point as ever, he can only get that if there are none at 3x. It is supply and demand like everything else you fool. If average pay was 2OK and you could get 35K would you be stupid enough to say no thanks I should get the average I will go take the 20K.
    You really are thick as mince.

    That was my point, that there needs to be much greater supply so that anyone who "holds out" gets undercut by others. Thanks for rephrasing my own point and giving it back to me, showing that even you agree with me. 🤦‍♂️
  • Options

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,474

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

    Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

    What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

    No, it really doesn't.

    As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.

    Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
    No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
    But it is our attitudes to property and housing which have damaged the economy.
    In many areas of the country, the dominant spending out of people’s income is housing.

    Whether rented or paying the mortgage.

    If the cost of housing halved, millions of people would have more money to spend on other stuff. They could even afford to pay more tax, if that’s what floats your boat.
    If my granny had testicles she could be my granpa, just as likely and as sensible.
  • Options

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
  • Options
    viewcode said:

    Has anybody else gotten The Light thru the letterbox? It's...how can I put this? Incredible?

    :)

    https://thelightpaper.co.uk/

    Damn. When I saw the front page I was impressed. I thought it might be a reasoned argument against two very authoritarian pieces of legislation.

    But then you start reading further down. NWO, Great Reset, Anti-vax, Lockdowns and emforced injections, Bill Gates is Satan and wants to eat your babies.

    Needless to say I cannot find it in me to recommend it.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    edited October 2023

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
    The point is that they are not hoarding them - a property built is occupied. Usually rapidly in building terms.

    The thing people seem to struggle with is that all flats in a new building aren’t occupied 5 minutes after the last piece of glass on one frontage goes in.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    .

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
    I’d take Kahn’s survey, and the Guardian’s reporting of it, with a large pinch of salt as well - but the London property roadshows are definitely real around the ME and China, and the investors will happily pay 100% up front to a reputable developer in the UK, even when there’s little more than a hole in the ground on site. That’s what happens when people trust your property rights.
  • Options

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
  • Options
    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

    Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

    What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

    No, it really doesn't.

    As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.

    Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
    No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
    But it is our attitudes to property and housing which have damaged the economy.
    In many areas of the country, the dominant spending out of people’s income is housing.

    Whether rented or paying the mortgage.

    If the cost of housing halved, millions of people would have more money to spend on other stuff. They could even afford to pay more tax, if that’s what floats your boat.
    If my granny had testicles she could be my granpa, just as likely and as sensible.
    If the cost of housing halved, it would still be nearly 50% higher than it was in the early 90s, relative to income.

    The cost of housing needs to plummet relative to income, to have a healthy economy. Doing so will be disruptive, but disruption is sometimes necessary.

    A few years of healthy inflation and income growth, means nominal price falls won't need to be as high to correct the market.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,667

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Occupancy nationwide is north of 99%, so if its north of 95% in London then that is odd.

    We need to get occupancy down below 90% nationwide, but by having sufficient supply, not restricted supply.
    Where are you getting that 99% figure from?
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
    I’d take Kahn’s survey, and the Guardian’s reporting of it, with a large pinch of salt as well - but the London property roadshows are definitely real around the ME and China, and the investors will happily pay 100% up front to a reputable developer in the UK, even when there’s little more than a hole in the ground on site. That’s what happens when people trust your property rights.
    Thats what happens when the govt prefer foreign money launderers to local residents as we have a massive ongoing balance of payments issue.....
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 19,310
    edited October 2023

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
    There was never a peace, but they have done so.

    Hamas have been killing people and using children as human shields. Hamas show as much of a disregard for "its own" citizens lives as it does for Jewish children's lives.

    Why do you blame Israel for Hamas using children as human shields?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,837

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

    Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

    What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

    No, it really doesn't.

    As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.

    Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
    No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
    But it is our attitudes to property and housing which have damaged the economy.
    In many areas of the country, the dominant spending out of people’s income is housing.

    Whether rented or paying the mortgage.

    If the cost of housing halved, millions of people would have more money to spend on other stuff. They could even afford to pay more tax, if that’s what floats your boat.
    Well, yes and no. If the capital cost of buying a house halved, but mortgage interest rates double, then they wind up paying the same for a less valuable asset. The money then goes to the banks, and to an extent to the savers.

    Generally people spend as much as they can afford on housing, by moving upmarket as soon as they can, typically about 40% of income. That what I was paying in the early nineties on a house less than 4x income.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Maybe HMG could ask them to come and build the railway here. You know, like in India.
    They’d ask for what they do in Africa - fence off the whole line, evict all the people living inside it without any compensation and smash the fuck out of anything in Maude that gets in their way.

    If you could give me the power to build a railway on the basis that, if it needs to go through Stonehenge, I get to make aggregate - no questions asked, I could do you a nice cheap railway.
    Maude?
    Not sure what auto-incorrect did there. Or is it Vanilla?
    Not a reference to Tennyson originally? Or a Victorian dye?
    Nope. Perhaps someone could work on the Lady of Shallot as a metaphor for the housing crisis. Then again, maybe the Food Crisis would be more appropriate?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    What a brilliant catch from Root in the deep!
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,255
    edited October 2023

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
    There was never a peace, but they have done so.

    Hamas have been killing people and using children as human shields. Hamas show as much of a disregard for "its own" citizens lives as it does for Jewish children's lives.

    Why do you blame Israel for Hamas using children as human shields?
    If you think that then I have a bridge to sell you. Actually no. You know that is not true but you are happy to just lie about it to support your genocidal views.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,118

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Hurt ripples in wake of Indigenous Voice vote

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67114612

    BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....

    How do you get that from reading the article ?

    Or did you note only the reported comments which offended you ?
    None of it "offends" me, as I have no horse in the race.

    But the balance is laughable.

    "Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued the Voice vote could unite Australia. But others remained convinced such a proposal would divide it. It also faced criticism from a bloc of Indigenous people who believed it wouldn't be powerful enough. Others saw it is a symbolic gesture and believed that money could be better spent on immediate solutions."

    So, basically its too weak...

    vs

    Outside a polling booth on Saturday, the 76-year-old said he was not opposed to the idea of the Voice - he just wanted to keep it out of the nation's founding document..."I voted No....contested claim that the referendum could make Indigenous people "more equal" than other Australians.... "I've been disappointed in the No campaign to be honest,....there's a part of me that hopes the Yes vote wins because I think there are so many people who are emotionally tied to this."

    But it "contested" claim, followed up the No is actually a Yes and the No campaign has been dishonest.
    It's a report from Darwin - which is the smallest of Australia's capitals, and has a disproportionately high indigenous population compared with the rest of the country.
    So you ought not to be massively surprised that it focuses on the reaction of the indigenous population to a referendum which was about them.

    And I think you have spun the first paragraph in a way that doesn't bear analysis.
    I got an email from a friend is Australia about his vote. Which was No. The reasons were a mix of a thin-end-of-the-wedge for what he sees as grifters using the Indigenous as their “in”, concern the politicians would expand on it as a way of end running democracy and dislike of the idea of writing difference into law.

    He’d probably map to an Orange Book Lib Dem, in the U.K.
    The whole exercise seemed misconceived to me, FWIW. But I struggle to get wound up by the BBC's reporting of it.
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
    The point is that they are not hoarding them - a property built is occupied. Usually rapidly in building terms.

    The thing people seem to struggle with is that all flats in a new building aren’t occupied 5 minutes after the last piece of glass on one frontage goes in.
    No, according to the report large numbers of the properties bought are left empty. And you can see why. Whay go through all the hassle and responsibilities of renting them out when until recently they have made plenty of money on paper from just owning them.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,654

    Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

    As I said, no good solutions...

    Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

    Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

    Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
    Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
    I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

    The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
    Recent Israeli governments don’t want a 2-state solution (thus continued settlement building in the West Bank). But they don’t want a 1-state solution because they worry about having a large Palestinian minority in the state, or even of Israel ceasing to be majority Jewish. Absorbing Gaza into Israel as is would more than double the Palestinian population of Israel, taking it to ~40% of the total population. That’s a complete non-starter for most Israeli politicians. Thus, this stalemate: an Israeli state and a half-state of Palestine that slowly shrinks as the settlements expand.

    For some hardliners, in and out of government, the solution is to take Palestinian land without the Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is little appetite in the current Israeli government for a Gaza or wider Palestine with any real autonomy. So I suspect what comes next is a return to the status quo: Gaza as a giant prison camp.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Occupancy nationwide is north of 99%, so if its north of 95% in London then that is odd.

    We need to get occupancy down below 90% nationwide, but by having sufficient supply, not restricted supply.
    Where are you getting that 99% figure from?
    https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/why-we-need-more-empty-homes-to-end-the-housing-crisis/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,995

    Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in four of six key swing states ahead of next year’s US presidential election, new polling for The Sunday Telegraph shows.

    In the latest suggestion Mr Trump’s early campaign has resonated in battleground states, the research finds he leads in a head-to-head battle in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida, and is tied with Mr Biden in Michigan.

    Mr Trump, who is the runaway favourite for the Republican nomination, is also considered to be the strongest leader of the two men and to best understand the problems facing America in all six states, including Pennsylvania, where Mr Biden has an overall lead.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/15/trump-leads-biden-in-four-of-six-battleground-states/

    Yes but Mr Trump's criminal trials start in March next year, he may be in jail by the time we get to next November's election if convicted
  • Options

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
    There was never a peace, but they have done so.

    Hamas have been killing people and using children as human shields. Hamas show as much of a disregard for "its own" citizens lives as it does for Jewish children's lives.

    Why do you blame Israel for Hamas using children as human shields?
    If you think that then I have a bridge to sell you. Actually no. You know that is not true but you are happy to just lie about it to support your genocidal views.
    Its not a lie, I do believe it.

    Do you deny that Hamas are using civilians as human shields?
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
    I’d take Kahn’s survey, and the Guardian’s reporting of it, with a large pinch of salt as well - but the London property roadshows are definitely real around the ME and China, and the investors will happily pay 100% up front to a reputable developer in the UK, even when there’s little more than a hole in the ground on site. That’s what happens when people trust your property rights.
    Two slightly different things.

    There's who is buying and owning the properties, and whether they are occupied afterwards.

    After all, even if there are foreigners from dodgy jurisdictions owning the flats, why wouldn't they also take the easy income from a tenant?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
    I’d take Kahn’s survey, and the Guardian’s reporting of it, with a large pinch of salt as well - but the London property roadshows are definitely real around the ME and China, and the investors will happily pay 100% up front to a reputable developer in the UK, even when there’s little more than a hole in the ground on site. That’s what happens when people trust your property rights.
    Thats what happens when the govt prefer foreign money launderers to local residents as we have a massive ongoing balance of payments issue.....
    Balance of payments is definitely an issue, which is why we see so much foreign money coming into shares and property. As a nation, we need to make more stuff and import less cheap tat.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in four of six key swing states ahead of next year’s US presidential election, new polling for The Sunday Telegraph shows.

    In the latest suggestion Mr Trump’s early campaign has resonated in battleground states, the research finds he leads in a head-to-head battle in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida, and is tied with Mr Biden in Michigan.

    Mr Trump, who is the runaway favourite for the Republican nomination, is also considered to be the strongest leader of the two men and to best understand the problems facing America in all six states, including Pennsylvania, where Mr Biden has an overall lead.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/15/trump-leads-biden-in-four-of-six-battleground-states/

    Yes but Mr Trump's criminal trials start in March next year, he may be in jail by the time we get to next November's election if convicted
    The Secret Servive will have to break Mr President out.....
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

    Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

    What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

    No, it really doesn't.

    As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.

    Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
    No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
    But it is our attitudes to property and housing which have damaged the economy.
    In many areas of the country, the dominant spending out of people’s income is housing.

    Whether rented or paying the mortgage.

    If the cost of housing halved, millions of people would have more money to spend on other stuff. They could even afford to pay more tax, if that’s what floats your boat.
    Well, yes and no. If the capital cost of buying a house halved, but mortgage interest rates double, then they wind up paying the same for a less valuable asset. The money then goes to the banks, and to an extent to the savers.

    Generally people spend as much as they can afford on housing, by moving upmarket as soon as they can, typically about 40% of income. That what I was paying in the early nineties on a house less than 4x income.
    I know this is unbelievable. Insane, even.

    But there are countries where housing doesn’t consume people’s incomes to the point that they work in order to pay the rent/mortgage in order to have the job to…

    When consumer goods fell in price, people didn’t buy bigger microwaves. They spent the money on something else.

    The people squeezed into tiny flats will probably upsize. One lady who rents a one bedroom flat for her and her son (family friends), for example. The living room is his bedroom. Grown up like that. He has a bunk bed/study thing. The tiny table they call the dining table, next to it….

    The people in 4 beds semis won’t rush out to buy Georgian mansions, though, I’d guess.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Occupancy nationwide is north of 99%, so if its north of 95% in London then that is odd.

    We need to get occupancy down below 90% nationwide, but by having sufficient supply, not restricted supply.
    Where are you getting that 99% figure from?
    According to the latest survey in 2022 it 97.3% which is still very high.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,412

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
    But what percentage of those 12% are rented out, and what percentage used as holiday home and what percentage left entirely empty?
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
    I’d take Kahn’s survey, and the Guardian’s reporting of it, with a large pinch of salt as well - but the London property roadshows are definitely real around the ME and China, and the investors will happily pay 100% up front to a reputable developer in the UK, even when there’s little more than a hole in the ground on site. That’s what happens when people trust your property rights.
    Thats what happens when the govt prefer foreign money launderers to local residents as we have a massive ongoing balance of payments issue.....
    Balance of payments is definitely an issue, which is why we see so much foreign money coming into shares and property. As a nation, we need to make more stuff and import less cheap tat.
    Might be easier to add a 10% surcharge to foreign launderers (sorry buyers). Still cheap for them.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,667
    The UK housing market isn't

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Occupancy nationwide is north of 99%, so if its north of 95% in London then that is odd.

    We need to get occupancy down below 90% nationwide, but by having sufficient supply, not restricted supply.
    Where are you getting that 99% figure from?
    https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/why-we-need-more-empty-homes-to-end-the-housing-crisis/
    I don't follow. You want to build more houses and then have them sit empty?
  • Options

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
    There was never a peace, but they have done so.

    Hamas have been killing people and using children as human shields. Hamas show as much of a disregard for "its own" citizens lives as it does for Jewish children's lives.

    Why do you blame Israel for Hamas using children as human shields?
    If you think that then I have a bridge to sell you. Actually no. You know that is not true but you are happy to just lie about it to support your genocidal views.
    Its not a lie, I do believe it.

    Do you deny that Hamas are using civilians as human shields?
    Not in the West Bank which is where we were discussing. And yet still the Israelis are killing children there.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Um no.

    The Mayor of London had a study done into the this between 2014 and 2016. 12% of all new builds in London in the study period were bought by overseas investors.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    From that Guardian article

    "Earlier this year, it emerged that one new apartment complex in Southwark, on the site of the former Heygate council estate, was 100% bought up by foreign investors. All 51 of the apartments in South Gardens in the Elephant and Castle area were sold abroad, according to Transparency International. At Baltimore Wharf, a development in the Isle of Dogs, where apartments started at £400,000, 87% of the 2,999 apartments were sold to foreign investors and 40% of those were based in high corruption risk jurisdictions, according to TI."

    Now I suppose you could claim that Sadiq Khan is being "semi-demi-racist" but I am not sure how far you will get with that argument.
    I’d take Kahn’s survey, and the Guardian’s reporting of it, with a large pinch of salt as well - but the London property roadshows are definitely real around the ME and China, and the investors will happily pay 100% up front to a reputable developer in the UK, even when there’s little more than a hole in the ground on site. That’s what happens when people trust your property rights.
    Two slightly different things.

    There's who is buying and owning the properties, and whether they are occupied afterwards.

    After all, even if there are foreigners from dodgy jurisdictions owning the flats, why wouldn't they also take the easy income from a tenant?
    In many cases no. There’s too much hassle of dealing with a tenant, the asset is appreciating anyway - and for many, the London flat is an escape bolthole in case they need to quickly get away from their own governments, which is something you think about an awful lot if you’re a rich Russian or Chinese.

    I suspect that many rich Russians and Chinese have moved to London in recent years, their property investment being a positive factor when they apply for visas.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

    Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

    What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

    No, it really doesn't.

    As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.

    Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
    No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
    But it is our attitudes to property and housing which have damaged the economy.
    In many areas of the country, the dominant spending out of people’s income is housing.

    Whether rented or paying the mortgage.

    If the cost of housing halved, millions of people would have more money to spend on other stuff. They could even afford to pay more tax, if that’s what floats your boat.
    Well, yes and no. If the capital cost of buying a house halved, but mortgage interest rates double, then they wind up paying the same for a less valuable asset. The money then goes to the banks, and to an extent to the savers.

    Generally people spend as much as they can afford on housing, by moving upmarket as soon as they can, typically about 40% of income. That what I was paying in the early nineties on a house less than 4x income.
    No, the proportion of income spent on housing is unprecedentedly high.

    And are older people who've paid off their mortgage running out to move so they can continue keep paying housing costs? No, not really. They spend their money on other things instead.

    You being fortunate enough to get a house in the 90s at a smaller proportion of income meant you could afford a deposit sooner, and pay off your mortgage sooner (or upgrade sooner then pay off mortgage). That's something denied to too many today who are far less fortunate than you, by an accident purely of timing.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    The UK housing market isn't

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Occupancy nationwide is north of 99%, so if its north of 95% in London then that is odd.

    We need to get occupancy down below 90% nationwide, but by having sufficient supply, not restricted supply.
    Where are you getting that 99% figure from?
    https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/why-we-need-more-empty-homes-to-end-the-housing-crisis/
    I don't follow. You want to build more houses and then have them sit empty?
    You might disagree, but surely you understand? Vacancies make property more affordable, its hardly rocket science.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,903
    Re the housing situation - I would repeat my regular comment that, in any analysis of housing, you need to factor in build costs. They are at the highest level that has ever been known in the industry. Until they come down it will heavily constrain what is possible in terms of housebuilding even with the greatest political will possible to see new development come forward. There are also major problems of capacity and skill shortages.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    Eabhal said:

    The UK housing market isn't

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Occupancy nationwide is north of 99%, so if its north of 95% in London then that is odd.

    We need to get occupancy down below 90% nationwide, but by having sufficient supply, not restricted supply.
    Where are you getting that 99% figure from?
    https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/why-we-need-more-empty-homes-to-end-the-housing-crisis/
    I don't follow. You want to build more houses and then have them sit empty?
    A health market has a surplus. Sainsbury’s has apples on the shelf when they close - otherwise it’s a fuck up.

    It is hard to imagine, given decades of deliberate housing shortage. But imagine if a shitty property couldn’t be let, because the tenants could simply find a non shitty property down the road?

    Running any system at 99% is to invite failure. See Operational Research - decades of evidence. If you look at the systems that are problematic in our society, ultra high usage is a common feature. Schools and hospitals, for example.
  • Options

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
    There was never a peace, but they have done so.

    Hamas have been killing people and using children as human shields. Hamas show as much of a disregard for "its own" citizens lives as it does for Jewish children's lives.

    Why do you blame Israel for Hamas using children as human shields?
    If you think that then I have a bridge to sell you. Actually no. You know that is not true but you are happy to just lie about it to support your genocidal views.
    Its not a lie, I do believe it.

    Do you deny that Hamas are using civilians as human shields?
    Not in the West Bank which is where we were discussing. And yet still the Israelis are killing children there.
    Sorry, I didn't realise you meant the West Bank. Ok, in the West Bank its Fatah more than Hamas using West Bank children as human shields.

    Were you under the misapprehension there's no violence coming from the West Bank? Were you naïve enough to think Israel is killing people unprovoked just for the fun of it?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    darkage said:

    Re the housing situation - I would repeat my regular comment that, in any analysis of housing, you need to factor in build costs. They are at the highest level that has ever been known in the industry. Until they come down it will heavily constrain what is possible in terms of housebuilding even with the greatest political will possible to see new development come forward. There are also major problems of capacity and skill shortages.

    A major cost is the cost of labour. Both direct - on site, and indirect - manufacture and supply of materials.

    A major component of the cost of labour is… drum roll… the cost of housing. Which feeds through to wages.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 19,310
    edited October 2023
    Eabhal said:

    The UK housing market isn't

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    darkage said:

    On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
    "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
    "We'll we do need more houses."
    "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."


    Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
    "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
    Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

    The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

    The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

    And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

    We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
    And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
    Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

    That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

    That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

    We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
    Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.

    The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
    Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there.
    Most of those stories about empty flats are semi-demi-racist bullshit. They tend to be popular among those who want to believe that by flipping a switch we can solve the housing crisis. Rather than actually building more fucking housing.

    Occupancy in London is north of 95% IIRC.
    Occupancy nationwide is north of 99%, so if its north of 95% in London then that is odd.

    We need to get occupancy down below 90% nationwide, but by having sufficient supply, not restricted supply.
    Where are you getting that 99% figure from?
    https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/why-we-need-more-empty-homes-to-end-the-housing-crisis/
    I don't follow. You want to build more houses and then have them sit empty?
    Some should be empty, yes.

    10% of houses should be empty over the long term.

    That means the crappier, damper, poorer quality, or more expensive, or otherwise unwanted houses don't get let or purchased. It gives renters or buyers power to say no to those houses. It gives an investor then (a genuine investor) an opportunity to buy those crappy homes, renovate them to be better quality, then flip them to be occupied as how people want them, thus leaving other houses empty instead.

    Rather than at present landlords being able to buy houses, neglect them, and expect a tenant to pay their mortgage because the tenant has no alternative.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Just as I type that we’re looking at close to 300, the bowlers work their magic!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    darkage said:

    Re the housing situation - I would repeat my regular comment that, in any analysis of housing, you need to factor in build costs. They are at the highest level that has ever been known in the industry. Until they come down it will heavily constrain what is possible in terms of housebuilding even with the greatest political will possible to see new development come forward. There are also major problems of capacity and skill shortages.

    A major cost is the cost of labour. Both direct - on site, and indirect - manufacture and supply of materials.

    A major component of the cost of labour is… drum roll… the cost of housing. Which feeds through to wages.
    Which is why you build houses in a factory in Durham, and ship them down to Dorset to be installed.
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,289

    darkage said:

    Re the housing situation - I would repeat my regular comment that, in any analysis of housing, you need to factor in build costs. They are at the highest level that has ever been known in the industry. Until they come down it will heavily constrain what is possible in terms of housebuilding even with the greatest political will possible to see new development come forward. There are also major problems of capacity and skill shortages.

    A major cost is the cost of labour. Both direct - on site, and indirect - manufacture and supply of materials.

    A major component of the cost of labour is… drum roll… the cost of housing. Which feeds through to wages.
    I have posted this article a couple of times before, but since it's directly relevant to the thread header, here we go again:

    The Housing Theory of Everything - https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything

    Expensive housing affects everything, from productivity and innovation to the birth rate and, as you say, expensive housing even makes building more houses more expensive.
  • Options
    .

    Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

    As I said, no good solutions...

    Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

    Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

    Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
    Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
    I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

    The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
    Recent Israeli governments don’t want a 2-state solution (thus continued settlement building in the West Bank). But they don’t want a 1-state solution because they worry about having a large Palestinian minority in the state, or even of Israel ceasing to be majority Jewish. Absorbing Gaza into Israel as is would more than double the Palestinian population of Israel, taking it to ~40% of the total population. That’s a complete non-starter for most Israeli politicians. Thus, this stalemate: an Israeli state and a half-state of Palestine that slowly shrinks as the settlements expand.

    For some hardliners, in and out of government, the solution is to take Palestinian land without the Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is little appetite in the current Israeli government for a Gaza or wider Palestine with any real autonomy. So I suspect what comes next is a return to the status quo: Gaza as a giant prison camp.
    Possible, but feels unlikely. Hamas have pushed way over the line on this one - there will have to be a reckoning. The "you must leave [before we level the city]" warning suggests they aren't taking prisoners this time. We could end up with Gaza split into two - the ruins of Gaza city rebuilt and absorbed into Israel (with little of the former population), the Khan Unis end under direct military occupation, with Hamas and a stack of civilians now spread across that southern end and the currently being erected security line inside Sinai.

    Egypt do not want Hamas stirring up trouble for them, but were happy to ensure Hamas were stirring up trouble for Israel. Now they can't do that any longer as what will be left of Hamas is heading south...
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,020
    edited October 2023
    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Re the housing situation - I would repeat my regular comment that, in any analysis of housing, you need to factor in build costs. They are at the highest level that has ever been known in the industry. Until they come down it will heavily constrain what is possible in terms of housebuilding even with the greatest political will possible to see new development come forward. There are also major problems of capacity and skill shortages.

    A major cost is the cost of labour. Both direct - on site, and indirect - manufacture and supply of materials.

    A major component of the cost of labour is… drum roll… the cost of housing. Which feeds through to wages.
    Which is why you build houses in a factory in Durham, and ship them down to Dorset to be installed.
    L&G have just announced they are closing their factory that makes modular homes. Couldn’t make money. It was in west Yorks
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,941
    edited October 2023

    viewcode said:

    Has anybody else gotten The Light thru the letterbox? It's...how can I put this? Incredible?

    :)

    https://thelightpaper.co.uk/

    Damn. When I saw the front page I was impressed. I thought it might be a reasoned argument against two very authoritarian pieces of legislation.

    But then you start reading further down. NWO, Great Reset, Anti-vax, Lockdowns and emforced injections, Bill Gates is Satan and wants to eat your babies.

    Needless to say I cannot find it in me to recommend it.
    June's issue is a classic: No climate crisis - Carbon dioxide has zero effect on temperatures
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    So 285 the target. Higher than it should have been, too many runs conceded at either end of the innings.

    Gettable, but still fraught with danger, need to keep hold of the wickets of the batsmen, keep the scoreboard ticking over and look to up the run rate in the closing stages of the innings.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,967
    Sandpit said:

    Just as I type that we’re looking at close to 300, the bowlers work their magic!

    I will be surprised if we get 10 overs of seam from Afghanistan. When you see how hard Rashid, Livingstone and even Root were to get away I am still somewhat apprehensive.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,308
    What idiot thought there was a run there?!

    Still a pretty handy total. England can't afford to be complacent given the pitch makes scoring against spin tough. 24 for 93-5 tells its own story.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,099
    edited October 2023

    Leon said:

    The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

    Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

    What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

    No, it really doesn't.

    As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.

    Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
    Leon reads extreme right sources and regurgitates their nonsense here. The conspiratorial right in the US are convinced that there will be multiple Hamas attacks in the US and elsewhere, so everyone needs to buy guns and flee the cities: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/trump-israel-truth-post-hamas-attack-rcna119753 and https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/israel-hamas-conflict-trump-maga-sleeper-cell-border-threat-1234849311/ This is complete bollocks.

    It also ties in with a more general belief in a coming clash of civilisations that mixes Christian evangelical eschatological fantasies with racists’ desire for a race war. (See also Great Replacement Theory.) All the reposting of horrific pictures and descriptions of atrocities (some true, some false) connect to this same philosophy of rousing the “sheeple” from their slumber. Some do so deliberately, some are just gullible because of their prejudices.
    “ Leon reads extreme right sources and regurgitates their nonsense here. ”

    I mean, do you actually believe this shit? It’s so not the case it’s laughable

    I enjoy news (clearly). I enjoy news from all sources on an issue to get a good picture. In this instance I have probably gone to MORE left wing and pro-Palestine - even pro-Hamas sources - than others, so as to get a decent grasp of the anger on that side

    I’ve looked at the vids and images pouring out of Gaza. And the invective in Arab/Muslim media. It’s the same with early COVID when I wanted to really understand what was happening in Wuhan. I looked at a lot of Chinese/Asian media. Not Fox or even the BBC

    The anger over Gaza is on a new scale and as this is only going to get worse, I am seriously fearful of the repercussions, particularly in Europe
  • Options

    viewcode said:

    Has anybody else gotten The Light thru the letterbox? It's...how can I put this? Incredible?

    :)

    https://thelightpaper.co.uk/

    Damn. When I saw the front page I was impressed. I thought it might be a reasoned argument against two very authoritarian pieces of legislation.

    But then you start reading further down. NWO, Great Reset, Anti-vax, Lockdowns and emforced injections, Bill Gates is Satan and wants to eat your babies.

    Needless to say I cannot find it in me to recommend it.
    June's issue is a classic: No climate crisis - Carbon dioxide has zero effect on temperatures
    Almost as good as "why transwomen need tampons"
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,020

    .

    Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

    As I said, no good solutions...

    Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

    Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

    Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
    Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
    I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

    The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
    Recent Israeli governments don’t want a 2-state solution (thus continued settlement building in the West Bank). But they don’t want a 1-state solution because they worry about having a large Palestinian minority in the state, or even of Israel ceasing to be majority Jewish. Absorbing Gaza into Israel as is would more than double the Palestinian population of Israel, taking it to ~40% of the total population. That’s a complete non-starter for most Israeli politicians. Thus, this stalemate: an Israeli state and a half-state of Palestine that slowly shrinks as the settlements expand.

    For some hardliners, in and out of government, the solution is to take Palestinian land without the Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is little appetite in the current Israeli government for a Gaza or wider Palestine with any real autonomy. So I suspect what comes next is a return to the status quo: Gaza as a giant prison camp.
    Possible, but feels unlikely. Hamas have pushed way over the line on this one - there will have to be a reckoning. The "you must leave [before we level the city]" warning suggests they aren't taking prisoners this time. We could end up with Gaza split into two - the ruins of Gaza city rebuilt and absorbed into Israel (with little of the former population), the Khan Unis end under direct military occupation, with Hamas and a stack of civilians now spread across that southern end and the currently being erected security line inside Sinai.

    Egypt do not want Hamas stirring up trouble for them, but were happy to ensure Hamas were stirring up trouble for Israel. Now they can't do that any longer as what will be left of Hamas is heading south...
    Egypt warned Israel of the Hamas attacks and has A peace treaty with Israel. Egypt has often acted as a broker between Israel and the Palestinians.

    I do not see why the neocon hawks think Egypt should just accept all the Gazans being displaced. Especially given Egypts current financial plight.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    Re the housing situation - I would repeat my regular comment that, in any analysis of housing, you need to factor in build costs. They are at the highest level that has ever been known in the industry. Until they come down it will heavily constrain what is possible in terms of housebuilding even with the greatest political will possible to see new development come forward. There are also major problems of capacity and skill shortages.

    A major cost is the cost of labour. Both direct - on site, and indirect - manufacture and supply of materials.

    A major component of the cost of labour is… drum roll… the cost of housing. Which feeds through to wages.
    I have posted this article a couple of times before, but since it's directly relevant to the thread header, here we go again:

    The Housing Theory of Everything - https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything

    Expensive housing affects everything, from productivity and innovation to the birth rate and, as you say, expensive housing even makes building more houses more expensive.
    Expensive, non-discretionary goods makes living costs high. High living costs lead to everything being expensive.

    Economists faint in shock.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,988
    edited October 2023
    I liked the first comment below - "don't behead babies and you won't get pissed on"
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,101
    | General Election Nowcast (15/10):

    LAB: 420 (+224) - 44.7%
    CON: 156 (-220) - 27.6%
    LDM: 33 (+25) - 10.9%
    SNP: 18 (-30) - 3.1%
    PLC: 3 (+1) - 0.5%
    GRN: 1 (=) - 5.6%
    RFM: 0 (=) - 6.6%
    Oth: 0 (=) - 0.8%

    LAB Maj. of 190.

    Changes w/ GE2019 notionals.
    https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast


    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1713527858461601871?s=20
  • Options
    Taz said:

    .

    Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

    As I said, no good solutions...

    Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

    Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

    Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
    Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
    I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

    The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
    Recent Israeli governments don’t want a 2-state solution (thus continued settlement building in the West Bank). But they don’t want a 1-state solution because they worry about having a large Palestinian minority in the state, or even of Israel ceasing to be majority Jewish. Absorbing Gaza into Israel as is would more than double the Palestinian population of Israel, taking it to ~40% of the total population. That’s a complete non-starter for most Israeli politicians. Thus, this stalemate: an Israeli state and a half-state of Palestine that slowly shrinks as the settlements expand.

    For some hardliners, in and out of government, the solution is to take Palestinian land without the Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is little appetite in the current Israeli government for a Gaza or wider Palestine with any real autonomy. So I suspect what comes next is a return to the status quo: Gaza as a giant prison camp.
    Possible, but feels unlikely. Hamas have pushed way over the line on this one - there will have to be a reckoning. The "you must leave [before we level the city]" warning suggests they aren't taking prisoners this time. We could end up with Gaza split into two - the ruins of Gaza city rebuilt and absorbed into Israel (with little of the former population), the Khan Unis end under direct military occupation, with Hamas and a stack of civilians now spread across that southern end and the currently being erected security line inside Sinai.

    Egypt do not want Hamas stirring up trouble for them, but were happy to ensure Hamas were stirring up trouble for Israel. Now they can't do that any longer as what will be left of Hamas is heading south...
    Egypt warned Israel of the Hamas attacks and has A peace treaty with Israel. Egypt has often acted as a broker between Israel and the Palestinians.

    I do not see why the neocon hawks think Egypt should just accept all the Gazans being displaced. Especially given Egypts current financial plight.
    If you're counting me as a "neocon hawk" then this is a new experience...

    I have no doubt that large amounts of cash will be made available to Egypt. Paying countries to take refugees is apparently quite popular these days so nobody can object.

    When people are fleeing war its usual practice to accept refugees until the war is over. International support will help them - is anyone saying that this is for Egypt alone to deal with?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,654

    .

    Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

    As I said, no good solutions...

    Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

    Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

    Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
    Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
    I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

    The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
    Recent Israeli governments don’t want a 2-state solution (thus continued settlement building in the West Bank). But they don’t want a 1-state solution because they worry about having a large Palestinian minority in the state, or even of Israel ceasing to be majority Jewish. Absorbing Gaza into Israel as is would more than double the Palestinian population of Israel, taking it to ~40% of the total population. That’s a complete non-starter for most Israeli politicians. Thus, this stalemate: an Israeli state and a half-state of Palestine that slowly shrinks as the settlements expand.

    For some hardliners, in and out of government, the solution is to take Palestinian land without the Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is little appetite in the current Israeli government for a Gaza or wider Palestine with any real autonomy. So I suspect what comes next is a return to the status quo: Gaza as a giant prison camp.
    Possible, but feels unlikely. Hamas have pushed way over the line on this one - there will have to be a reckoning. The "you must leave [before we level the city]" warning suggests they aren't taking prisoners this time. We could end up with Gaza split into two - the ruins of Gaza city rebuilt and absorbed into Israel (with little of the former population), the Khan Unis end under direct military occupation, with Hamas and a stack of civilians now spread across that southern end and the currently being erected security line inside Sinai.

    Egypt do not want Hamas stirring up trouble for them, but were happy to ensure Hamas were stirring up trouble for Israel. Now they can't do that any longer as what will be left of Hamas is heading south...
    Annexation after ethnic cleansing would not go down well with the international community and is something I think Israeli governments would want to avoid. Direct military occupation in the short term appears likely, but will be difficult in the long term, with constant Israeli casualties. Israel previously chose to get out of Gaza and the reasons for doing so then will be true in the future.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,636
    Taz said:

    .

    Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

    As I said, no good solutions...

    Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

    Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

    Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
    Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
    I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

    The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
    Recent Israeli governments don’t want a 2-state solution (thus continued settlement building in the West Bank). But they don’t want a 1-state solution because they worry about having a large Palestinian minority in the state, or even of Israel ceasing to be majority Jewish. Absorbing Gaza into Israel as is would more than double the Palestinian population of Israel, taking it to ~40% of the total population. That’s a complete non-starter for most Israeli politicians. Thus, this stalemate: an Israeli state and a half-state of Palestine that slowly shrinks as the settlements expand.

    For some hardliners, in and out of government, the solution is to take Palestinian land without the Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is little appetite in the current Israeli government for a Gaza or wider Palestine with any real autonomy. So I suspect what comes next is a return to the status quo: Gaza as a giant prison camp.
    Possible, but feels unlikely. Hamas have pushed way over the line on this one - there will have to be a reckoning. The "you must leave [before we level the city]" warning suggests they aren't taking prisoners this time. We could end up with Gaza split into two - the ruins of Gaza city rebuilt and absorbed into Israel (with little of the former population), the Khan Unis end under direct military occupation, with Hamas and a stack of civilians now spread across that southern end and the currently being erected security line inside Sinai.

    Egypt do not want Hamas stirring up trouble for them, but were happy to ensure Hamas were stirring up trouble for Israel. Now they can't do that any longer as what will be left of Hamas is heading south...
    Egypt warned Israel of the Hamas attacks and has A peace treaty with Israel. Egypt has often acted as a broker between Israel and the Palestinians.

    I do not see why the neocon hawks think Egypt should just accept all the Gazans being displaced. Especially given Egypts current financial plight.
    Why should Turkey have millions of Syrian refugees for ten years, when their economy isn't healthy? Ditto Lebanon.

    If Egypt takes them, perhaps we - the rich west - should help them with the costs.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,020

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
    There was never a peace, but they have done so.

    Hamas have been killing people and using children as human shields. Hamas show as much of a disregard for "its own" citizens lives as it does for Jewish children's lives.

    Why do you blame Israel for Hamas using children as human shields?
    If you think that then I have a bridge to sell you. Actually no. You know that is not true but you are happy to just lie about it to support your genocidal views.
    Its not a lie, I do believe it.

    Do you deny that Hamas are using civilians as human shields?
    Not in the West Bank which is where we were discussing. And yet still the Israelis are killing children there.
    Sorry, I didn't realise you meant the West Bank. Ok, in the West Bank its Fatah more than Hamas using West Bank children as human shields.

    Were you under the misapprehension there's no violence coming from the West Bank? Were you naïve enough to think Israel is killing people unprovoked just for the fun of it?
    No, I believe they just don't care. I believe that in the West Bank they install illegal settlements and then provoke the Palestinains into protests during which they shoot them.

    Israel are involved in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They want them gone and are happy to kill to acheve it.

    Does this in anyway excuse, absolve or even explain Hamas and their attacks? No. There are no excuses for that.

    Does that in turn mean we should just give Israel a blank cheque and let them do what they want? Again no. They cannot be allowed to use the attacks of last week as an excuse for stepping up their ethnic cleansing.
    On the LauraK show this morning the guy from the Palestinian authority in Ramallah made the point that 30 years ago they turned away from the armed struggle and their reward is land being stolen and built on by settlers.
  • Options
    Chances are they were Hamas terrorists (given the Israelis were doing so in plain sight, it is a bit of a giveaway this was filmed somewhere in Israel). Given the circumstances of what had happened, not a surprise.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,903

    darkage said:

    Re the housing situation - I would repeat my regular comment that, in any analysis of housing, you need to factor in build costs. They are at the highest level that has ever been known in the industry. Until they come down it will heavily constrain what is possible in terms of housebuilding even with the greatest political will possible to see new development come forward. There are also major problems of capacity and skill shortages.

    A major cost is the cost of labour. Both direct - on site, and indirect - manufacture and supply of materials.

    A major component of the cost of labour is… drum roll… the cost of housing. Which feeds through to wages.
    It is correct that the largest part of build costs is labour costs. But a key element of this is a skilled (and unskilled) labour shortage, which drives up wages. I don't think it is entirely about high housing costs. Until demand subsides (which it may be doing at the moment) the costs will stay like this.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,636

    Chances are they were Hamas terrorists (given the Israelis were doing so in plain sight, it is a bit of a giveaway this was filmed somewhere in Israel). Given the circumstances of what had happened, not a surprise.
    Wrong though; both morally and politically.

    Israel really needs to stop giving ammunition to the people - both in the Middle East and over here - who hate it.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,020

    Taz said:

    .

    Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

    As I said, no good solutions...

    Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

    Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

    Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
    Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
    I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

    The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
    Recent Israeli governments don’t want a 2-state solution (thus continued settlement building in the West Bank). But they don’t want a 1-state solution because they worry about having a large Palestinian minority in the state, or even of Israel ceasing to be majority Jewish. Absorbing Gaza into Israel as is would more than double the Palestinian population of Israel, taking it to ~40% of the total population. That’s a complete non-starter for most Israeli politicians. Thus, this stalemate: an Israeli state and a half-state of Palestine that slowly shrinks as the settlements expand.

    For some hardliners, in and out of government, the solution is to take Palestinian land without the Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is little appetite in the current Israeli government for a Gaza or wider Palestine with any real autonomy. So I suspect what comes next is a return to the status quo: Gaza as a giant prison camp.
    Possible, but feels unlikely. Hamas have pushed way over the line on this one - there will have to be a reckoning. The "you must leave [before we level the city]" warning suggests they aren't taking prisoners this time. We could end up with Gaza split into two - the ruins of Gaza city rebuilt and absorbed into Israel (with little of the former population), the Khan Unis end under direct military occupation, with Hamas and a stack of civilians now spread across that southern end and the currently being erected security line inside Sinai.

    Egypt do not want Hamas stirring up trouble for them, but were happy to ensure Hamas were stirring up trouble for Israel. Now they can't do that any longer as what will be left of Hamas is heading south...
    Egypt warned Israel of the Hamas attacks and has A peace treaty with Israel. Egypt has often acted as a broker between Israel and the Palestinians.

    I do not see why the neocon hawks think Egypt should just accept all the Gazans being displaced. Especially given Egypts current financial plight.
    Why should Turkey have millions of Syrian refugees for ten years, when their economy isn't healthy? Ditto Lebanon.

    .
    Why indeed. I agree with you on that. The west should be taking far more.

    Egypt are not there to be the recipients of the ethnic cleansing of civilians who will never be able to return.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,315

    Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.

    So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.

    The hyper caution is becoming too much now.

    Whilst some good things probably came out of it, in some ways the 2017 GE has had some terrible legacies. Politicians are already naturally cautious on topics which require more than a cheap soundbite, and whether one thought the plans were a good idea it was at least bold of May to put the Dementia Tax stuff in, albeit out of an expectation she was going to win big so could risk it. In the aftermath they'll steer away from putting detail on any complex problem solution, as they will be terrified of it blowing up in their faces.

    The fact I cannot recall how it was referred to other than the pejorative label is itself concerning.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,302

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
    There was never a peace, but they have done so.

    Hamas have been killing people and using children as human shields. Hamas show as much of a disregard for "its own" citizens lives as it does for Jewish children's lives.

    Why do you blame Israel for Hamas using children as human shields?
    If you think that then I have a bridge to sell you. Actually no. You know that is not true but you are happy to just lie about it to support your genocidal views.
    Its not a lie, I do believe it.

    Do you deny that Hamas are using civilians as human shields?
    Not in the West Bank which is where we were discussing. And yet still the Israelis are killing children there.
    Sorry, I didn't realise you meant the West Bank. Ok, in the West Bank its Fatah more than Hamas using West Bank children as human shields.

    Were you under the misapprehension there's no violence coming from the West Bank? Were you naïve enough to think Israel is killing people unprovoked just for the fun of it?
    No, I believe they just don't care. I believe that in the West Bank they install illegal settlements and then provoke the Palestinains into protests during which they shoot them.

    Israel are involved in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They want them gone and are happy to kill to acheve it.

    Does this in anyway excuse, absolve or even explain Hamas and their attacks? No. There are no excuses for that.

    Does that in turn mean we should just give Israel a blank cheque and let them do what they want? Again no. They cannot be allowed to use the attacks of last week as an excuse for stepping up their ethnic cleansing.
    The settlement-building programme has never been justified. Israel has enough land of its own. And, the typical settler is a shit.
  • Options

    Chances are they were Hamas terrorists (given the Israelis were doing so in plain sight, it is a bit of a giveaway this was filmed somewhere in Israel). Given the circumstances of what had happened, not a surprise.
    Wrong though; both morally and politically.

    Israel really needs to stop giving ammunition to the people - both in the Middle East and over here - who hate it.
    Wrong yes but a practice - pissing on your enemy's dead body - that is a recurring theme in warfare.

    It is a bit like with a crime - you commit a crime, you forfeit your liberty and some of your rights as a citizen. It is the same here - you butcher people and slaughter women and children, and you forfeit some of the dignity in death you might otherwise expect.

    Anyway, don't grieve too much. In their minds, they are off to Heaven with the Virgins awaiting for what they have done.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 622
    After yesterdays enthralling matches in RWC in which my predictions were 0/2 (although in fairness I did say the Ireland NZ would be close and NZ could pinch it), it will soon be time to go all over again.

    For the record I predicted a France win by +6 and an unpredictable England Fiji game. I think that England will initially play a tight kicking game which will ease them into an early lead - but where Fiji just run right back at them - and over them. England's selection decisions look 'brave' - they could turn out to be inspirational....but maybe not. Fiji by +10.

    #cymrudrua
  • Options
    Penddu2 said:

    After yesterdays enthralling matches in RWC in which my predictions were 0/2 (although in fairness I did say the Ireland NZ would be close and NZ could pinch it), it will soon be time to go all over again.

    For the record I predicted a France win by +6 and an unpredictable England Fiji game. I think that England will initially play a tight kicking game which will ease them into an early lead - but where Fiji just run right back at them - and over them. England's selection decisions look 'brave' - they could turn out to be inspirational....but maybe not. Fiji by +10.

    #cymrudrua

    Not a bad prediction.

    I was surprised with Wales yesterday - nerves obviously got to them
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,315

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
    There was never a peace, but they have done so.

    Hamas have been killing people and using children as human shields. Hamas show as much of a disregard for "its own" citizens lives as it does for Jewish children's lives.

    Why do you blame Israel for Hamas using children as human shields?
    If you think that then I have a bridge to sell you. Actually no. You know that is not true but you are happy to just lie about it to support your genocidal views.
    Its not a lie, I do believe it.

    Do you deny that Hamas are using civilians as human shields?
    Not in the West Bank which is where we were discussing. And yet still the Israelis are killing children there.
    Sorry, I didn't realise you meant the West Bank. Ok, in the West Bank its Fatah more than Hamas using West Bank children as human shields.

    Were you under the misapprehension there's no violence coming from the West Bank? Were you naïve enough to think Israel is killing people unprovoked just for the fun of it?
    No, I believe they just don't care. I believe that in the West Bank they install illegal settlements and then provoke the Palestinains into protests during which they shoot them.

    Israel are involved in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They want them gone and are happy to kill to acheve it.

    Does this in anyway excuse, absolve or even explain Hamas and their attacks? No. There are no excuses for that.

    Does that in turn mean we should just give Israel a blank cheque and let them do what they want? Again no. They cannot be allowed to use the attacks of last week as an excuse for stepping up their ethnic cleansing.
    It's not really that hard a position to hold, despite people insisting otherwise.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,636
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    .

    Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

    As I said, no good solutions...

    Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

    Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

    Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
    Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
    I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

    The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
    Recent Israeli governments don’t want a 2-state solution (thus continued settlement building in the West Bank). But they don’t want a 1-state solution because they worry about having a large Palestinian minority in the state, or even of Israel ceasing to be majority Jewish. Absorbing Gaza into Israel as is would more than double the Palestinian population of Israel, taking it to ~40% of the total population. That’s a complete non-starter for most Israeli politicians. Thus, this stalemate: an Israeli state and a half-state of Palestine that slowly shrinks as the settlements expand.

    For some hardliners, in and out of government, the solution is to take Palestinian land without the Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is little appetite in the current Israeli government for a Gaza or wider Palestine with any real autonomy. So I suspect what comes next is a return to the status quo: Gaza as a giant prison camp.
    Possible, but feels unlikely. Hamas have pushed way over the line on this one - there will have to be a reckoning. The "you must leave [before we level the city]" warning suggests they aren't taking prisoners this time. We could end up with Gaza split into two - the ruins of Gaza city rebuilt and absorbed into Israel (with little of the former population), the Khan Unis end under direct military occupation, with Hamas and a stack of civilians now spread across that southern end and the currently being erected security line inside Sinai.

    Egypt do not want Hamas stirring up trouble for them, but were happy to ensure Hamas were stirring up trouble for Israel. Now they can't do that any longer as what will be left of Hamas is heading south...
    Egypt warned Israel of the Hamas attacks and has A peace treaty with Israel. Egypt has often acted as a broker between Israel and the Palestinians.

    I do not see why the neocon hawks think Egypt should just accept all the Gazans being displaced. Especially given Egypts current financial plight.
    Why should Turkey have millions of Syrian refugees for ten years, when their economy isn't healthy? Ditto Lebanon.

    .
    Why indeed. I agree with you on that. The west should be taking far more.

    Egypt are not there to be the recipients of the ethnic cleansing of civilians who will never be able to return.
    Actually, I think it's far better to keep refugees near to where they have come from. It makes return much easier. But if that's what *we* - the rich west - want to happen, then we should help pay.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

    As I said, no good solutions...

    Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

    Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

    Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
    Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
    I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

    The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
    Why would Israel, a nation of 7 million, absorb 2 million more people with the rights that come with it, including voting.
    They won't absorb 2 million. A tenth of that maybe. the rest will insist in living as "refugees", imprisoned in northern Sinai by the Egyptians.

    As I said a few posts ago, the Palestinians are not interested in any deal. Neither are their arab neighbours. Palestine - never independent - simply is a political pawn for the rest of the region who want to remove the jew.

    As has just been pointed out, the arrival of Hamas in the refugees into Sinai could spark Egypt off again. So Egypt does not want Hamas either. The simple truth is that when push comes to shove, it is in the interests of both sides to eradicate Hamas. Only Iran wants them.
    Would I struggle to understand is how the Saudi normailsation with Iran (facilitated by China) can be squared with the peace with Israel stuff. Surely the former blew the latter prospect out of the water?
    The Saudis are trying to develop their economy away from oil, they want their Red Sea coast to be Dubai on steroids, a tourist magnet to people from all over the world - which doesn’t work if there’s a massive war going on close by. Hence the talks with everyone in the region to try and achieve peace. The Saudis are as furious as anyone, that once again Iran (and to some extent Qatar) are choosing war rather than peace, weapons and not trade, Sunni against Shia.
    Yes, there's a lot of social media adverts for Saudi tourism at the moment.
  • Options
    Nick Davies, theatre critic and a former Arts Council of Wales theatre portfolio officer said he was also not surprised that National Theatre Wales has lost its funding.

    He said: “It’s got to the point where it would do almost anything but put on a play.

    "I’ve started to realise that there seems to be a lack of confidence in actually creating real drama involving real actors, involving playwrights, and creating a piece of work."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyd163zqmn7o
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,967
    kle4 said:

    Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.

    So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.

    The hyper caution is becoming too much now.

    Whilst some good things probably came out of it, in some ways the 2017 GE has had some terrible legacies. Politicians are already naturally cautious on topics which require more than a cheap soundbite, and whether one thought the plans were a good idea it was at least bold of May to put the Dementia Tax stuff in, albeit out of an expectation she was going to win big so could risk it. In the aftermath they'll steer away from putting detail on any complex problem solution, as they will be terrified of it blowing up in their faces.

    The fact I cannot recall how it was referred to other than the pejorative label is itself concerning.
    May was absolutely right that the idea that the taxpayer should pick up £300k+ of nursing home costs so that the kids could be left a nice house was immoral, wrong and, ultimately unaffordable. You can argue what about medical costs and cancer treatments and that may be hard to justify logically but we need to find serious wedges of cash for care and I don't see an alternative source.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,087
    edited October 2023

    The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.

    Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.

    Hardly surprising or controversial, that just seems like common sense and inevitable even to someone like me with a terrible record at laser quest. Greater risk and more volatility should mean looser rules of engagement compared to a relatively more stable situation.
    How will they tell the difference from their previous approach?

    'RAMALLAH, 18 Sept 2023 - At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children.'

    https://www.savethechildren.net/news/2023-marks-deadliest-year-record-children-occupied-west-bank
    Indeed but according to some on here if you raise things like this you are an anti-semite.
    No, you can entirely legitimately criticise Israel without being an antisemite.

    If you blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel uniquely of all nations is not permitted to defend itself while at war, then you're being antisemitic.

    If you say that Israel, rather than Hamas, are responsible for Gazan civilian deaths, then you're antisemitic.

    Afterall Hamas started the conflict, Hamas are using civilians as human shields (which is a war crime) and Israel is the only one doing what it can to avoid civilian deaths, such as warning civilians to get out of the area so they don't get caught in the conflict.

    Israel is at war and is entirely legitimately able to seek to destroy Hamas after it started this war. It needs to do so proportionately, which means trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as is reasonably possible - which is what it is doing. But Hamas are using civilians as human shields, so civilians are going to die - thanks to Hamas.
    So why should we expect it to do any of that during a war when they have singularly failed to do so during a peace.
    There was never a peace, but they have done so.

    Hamas have been killing people and using children as human shields. Hamas show as much of a disregard for "its own" citizens lives as it does for Jewish children's lives.

    Why do you blame Israel for Hamas using children as human shields?
    If you think that then I have a bridge to sell you. Actually no. You know that is not true but you are happy to just lie about it to support your genocidal views.
    Its not a lie, I do believe it.

    Do you deny that Hamas are using civilians as human shields?
    Not in the West Bank which is where we were discussing. And yet still the Israelis are killing children there.
    Sorry, I didn't realise you meant the West Bank. Ok, in the West Bank its Fatah more than Hamas using West Bank children as human shields.

    Were you under the misapprehension there's no violence coming from the West Bank? Were you naïve enough to think Israel is killing people unprovoked just for the fun of it?
    No, I believe they just don't care. I believe that in the West Bank they install illegal settlements and then provoke the Palestinains into protests during which they shoot them.

    Israel are involved in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They want them gone and are happy to kill to acheve it.

    Does this in anyway excuse, absolve or even explain Hamas and their attacks? No. There are no excuses for that.

    Does that in turn mean we should just give Israel a blank cheque and let them do what they want? Again no. They cannot be allowed to use the attacks of last week as an excuse for stepping up their ethnic cleansing.
    I agree with all that.

    I have a suspicion that Netanyahu has supported Hamas because Hamas makes a peace agreement impossible so that Netanyahu can continue to establish "facts on the ground".

    Hamas are psychopathic killers, enemies of Palestinians and peace, and cultured by Netanyahu.

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000?v=1697373411248
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,636
    According to an ad I've just seen, the RSPCA are now doing a free will-writing service.

    That seems rather... dodgy to me. From a quick Google, it looks as though many charities are doing it.
  • Options
    Good job England bat deep....
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,528
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Re the housing situation - I would repeat my regular comment that, in any analysis of housing, you need to factor in build costs. They are at the highest level that has ever been known in the industry. Until they come down it will heavily constrain what is possible in terms of housebuilding even with the greatest political will possible to see new development come forward. There are also major problems of capacity and skill shortages.

    A major cost is the cost of labour. Both direct - on site, and indirect - manufacture and supply of materials.

    A major component of the cost of labour is… drum roll… the cost of housing. Which feeds through to wages.
    It is correct that the largest part of build costs is labour costs. But a key element of this is a skilled (and unskilled) labour shortage, which drives up wages. I don't think it is entirely about high housing costs. Until demand subsides (which it may be doing at the moment) the costs will stay like this.
    The labour “shortage” is a shortage of people prepared to work for low wages. Or work more hours and lose benefits as fast as they earn.

    I suppose we could import the population of Gaza and force them to work for nothing on our building sites. Maybe a nice pyramid or two?
This discussion has been closed.