Howdy, Stranger!

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

Latest WH2024 polling has Biden ahead of Trump but losing to Haley – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 4 in General
imageLatest WH2024 polling has Biden ahead of Trump but losing to Haley – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,995
    Deep state rigging it against Haley?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705
    edited February 1
    First like Biden! Er... like Trump in 2020!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705
    On topic, well it's just one poll but I have always thought that Biden's numbers will improve through the year.

    Haley's problem will be Trump - he will be a spoiler if he does not get the GOP nomination.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    edited February 1

    On topic, well it's just one poll but I have always thought that Biden's numbers will improve through the year.

    Haley's problem will be Trump - he will be a spoiler if he does not get the GOP nomination.

    Haley's problem is the Republicans (I never call them the 'GOP' given by most measures the Democrats are much older) have taken leave of their senses.

    There was a time when they wanted to actually win elections. If that still held good, she'd be storming clear in the primaries right now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004

    On topic, well it's just one poll but I have always thought that Biden's numbers will improve through the year.

    Haley's problem will be Trump - he will be a spoiler if he does not get the GOP nomination.

    Quite - it's one reason he's cowed the minority who don't like him, because they know he is willing and probably able to ruin them in all sorts of races worse than if they just bite their tongues and back him.

    Granted I don't think the question will arise.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    viewcode said:

    Ratters said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.

    Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent

    2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.

    We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.

    3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.

    Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.

    It must end.

    .


    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1753066693566611753?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.

    My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
    It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.

    Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
    Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.

    Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
    I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
    Can we split the difference?

    Most Muslims absolutely are not the problem. Secular Muslims are not a problem.

    The problem behind Islamic extremism though is Islam, just as the problem behind Christian extremism in the past (and still for many today) is Christianity.

    Thankfully Christian countries went through the Enlightenment and thankfully today most Christians in Europe at the least are more secular in their views and disregard the extremist elements of Christianity.

    We need Islam to undergo the same Enlightenment. Many Muslims are indeed enlightened and take their faith with appropriate grains of salt - that is not encouraged by people pretending that there is no problem in the religion itself - any more than it helps if people pretend there's no problems in the Bible itself.
    Indeed. A good analogy is Germany during the Nazi era

    Most Germans weren’t evil Nazis. Germany was a great nation with a magnificent cultural heritage. But a peculiar and unfortunate sequence of events allowed a small group of evil men to deceive a wider group of Germans into supporting them and they then bullied the rest of the nation into submission. And Nazi Germany was born

    Most Muslims do not support islamism. Islam is a great religion with a magnificent cultural heritage. But a peculiar sequence of events has allowed a relatively small cabal of fundamentalist freaks to
    pervert Islam to violent ends - and a lot of Muslims are bullied into silence by them, and thus entire nations have been captured - Iran is the classic
    example

    As both Mao and Mussolini observed, you don’t need vast armies to seize power over many millions of people, you just need a reasonable number of extreme, disciplined and aggressive fighters - the complacent majority will acquiesce in favour of a quiet life
    Sorry but I disagree with you. The problem is not that the cabal of freaks have perverted Islam to be violent. The problem is that Islam (like Christianity and other organised religions) is violent.

    The quran, like the Bible, is full of rotten, evil, horrid stuff that is appalling to modern, secular tastes. Thankfully most enlightened people disregard those elements, or even laugh at them.

    The problem is they are there, and the extremists are taking their instructions literally.

    Islamic extremists are beheading people not because they've twisted an angelic faith, but because the quran says to behead your enemies. Its there in black and white.

    The West Wing portrayed this excellently with Christianity, responding to those who latch on to some passages for eg homophobic reasons by going for even more extreme Biblical passages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

    The same that has been done with the Bible can be with the Quran - the zealots are those taking what does exist within the religion seriously, rather than with the appropriate and modern grains of salt.

    The modern way is to pervert religion to being something more secular and enlightened by disregarding the horrible passages. Lets not pretend they're not there, because they are, and being dishonest just isn't helpful.
    Some fair points, however Islam has not always been like this - literal, brutal, primitivist. That’s why the movement that is islamism was BORN in the 20th century - to take Islam back to some half-imagined purist past, severe and dogmatic, the religion of the baking desert

    There have been other Islams - much more tolerant and urbane. The Islam of Omar Khayyam and his jug of wine. The Islam of Al Andalus and the great Muslim scholars. The Islam of the Sufi mystics

    Islamism is ONE interpretation of Islam, barbaric and pugnacious. Unfortunately it is ascendant

    Maybe we should set-up a 'Mosque of England' that follows its Christian equivalent by minimising the religious part of religion to the fullest extent possible...
    That's not actually a stupid idea. Create an established Islamic church, train the Imams, licence them, and ensure only they get funded by the state.
    Grand Mufti Charles III?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, well it's just one poll but I have always thought that Biden's numbers will improve through the year.

    Haley's problem will be Trump - he will be a spoiler if he does not get the GOP nomination.

    Haley's problem is the Republicans (weird to call them the 'GOP' given by most measures the Democrats are much older) have taken leave of their senses.

    There was a time when they wanted to actually win elections. If that still held good, she'd be storming clear in the primaries right now.
    Once you stop believing you can lose elections legitimately, that is losing is itself proof it was illegitimate (as over 50 baseless legal challenges demonstrate they believe), then of course you stop caring about winning. You already know you've won, if you can overcome the deep state rigging it.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,504
    edited February 1

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding the last estimate I saw is that we are missing 5 million+ homes - but we can't hike the minimum wage because when I look at the forthcoming increase it's at the point where it's once again dragging the next tier of jobs into minimum wage territory.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    edited February 1
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    I confess not to know what to think about this stated plan - there's no definitive answer on what ratio of electors to representatives you should have. I mean, there are local councils with well north of 100 councillors. The New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400 for 1.4m people whilst Utah has 75 for 3.2m

    If Westminster were expanded in the way planned for the Senedd it would have more than 2,000 MPs, Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt has argued.

    Plans to raise the number of Senedd members from 60 to 96 cleared their first hurdle in Cardiff on Tuesday.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68172202

    I suppose the big question is how does raising by 36 make the Senedd more modern and better able to represent Wales, as the Welsh government states? Are the boundaries really bad?

    There must be examples when an elected (or unelected...) representative has proposed changes against their, or their parties, advantage?
    Robespierre's self-denying ordinance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-denying_Ordinance_(French_Revolution)

    Gladstone in 1884 conceded boundary changes to the Conservatives if he could keep control of the franchise. However, that probably was just idiocy instead of generosity.

    In 1928 the Conservatives brought in votes for women despite claims it would hurt them electorally. It is worth noting this was not the view of their own campaigning staff.

    After that I'm struggling.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-denying_Ordinance
    How was it against their political interests to strengthen the army officer corps?
    Because that army officer corps then turned on them?

    Granted, some of the ones involved in that were exempted from the Ordinance.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    I confess not to know what to think about this stated plan - there's no definitive answer on what ratio of electors to representatives you should have. I mean, there are local councils with well north of 100 councillors. The New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400 for 1.4m people whilst Utah has 75 for 3.2m

    If Westminster were expanded in the way planned for the Senedd it would have more than 2,000 MPs, Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt has argued.

    Plans to raise the number of Senedd members from 60 to 96 cleared their first hurdle in Cardiff on Tuesday.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68172202

    I suppose the big question is how does raising by 36 make the Senedd more modern and better able to represent Wales, as the Welsh government states? Are the boundaries really bad?

    There must be examples when an elected (or unelected...) representative has proposed changes against their, or their parties, advantage?
    Robespierre's self-denying ordinance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-denying_Ordinance_(French_Revolution)

    Gladstone in 1884 conceded boundary changes to the Conservatives if he could keep control of the franchise. However, that probably was just idiocy instead of generosity.

    In 1928 the Conservatives brought in votes for women despite claims it would hurt them electorally. It is worth noting this was not the view of their own campaigning staff.

    After that I'm struggling.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-denying_Ordinance
    How was it against their political interests to strengthen the army officer corps?
    Because that army officer corps then turned on them?

    Granted, some of the ones involved in that were exempted from the Ordinance.
    I don't think that was the point of it!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    edited February 1
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    I confess not to know what to think about this stated plan - there's no definitive answer on what ratio of electors to representatives you should have. I mean, there are local councils with well north of 100 councillors. The New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400 for 1.4m people whilst Utah has 75 for 3.2m

    If Westminster were expanded in the way planned for the Senedd it would have more than 2,000 MPs, Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt has argued.

    Plans to raise the number of Senedd members from 60 to 96 cleared their first hurdle in Cardiff on Tuesday.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68172202

    I suppose the big question is how does raising by 36 make the Senedd more modern and better able to represent Wales, as the Welsh government states? Are the boundaries really bad?

    There must be examples when an elected (or unelected...) representative has proposed changes against their, or their parties, advantage?
    Robespierre's self-denying ordinance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-denying_Ordinance_(French_Revolution)

    Gladstone in 1884 conceded boundary changes to the Conservatives if he could keep control of the franchise. However, that probably was just idiocy instead of generosity.

    In 1928 the Conservatives brought in votes for women despite claims it would hurt them electorally. It is worth noting this was not the view of their own campaigning staff.

    After that I'm struggling.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-denying_Ordinance
    How was it against their political interests to strengthen the army officer corps?
    Because that army officer corps then turned on them?

    Granted, some of the ones involved in that were exempted from the Ordinance.
    I don't think that was the point of it!
    The original question was about proposing something against their advantage, in which case you are right. But your modified point was about how it was against their political interests, which I guess it kind of was. Militarily it certainly worked to their advantage!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705
    eek said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding the last estimate I saw is that we are missing 5 million+ homes - but we can't hike the minimum wage because when I look at the forthcoming increase it's at the point where it's once again dragging the next tier of jobs into minimum wage territory.
    And the problem with that is?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, well it's just one poll but I have always thought that Biden's numbers will improve through the year.

    Haley's problem will be Trump - he will be a spoiler if he does not get the GOP nomination.

    Haley's problem is the Republicans (weird to call them the 'GOP' given by most measures the Democrats are much older) have taken leave of their senses.

    There was a time when they wanted to actually win elections. If that still held good, she'd be storming clear in the primaries right now.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/01/nikki-haley-pre-trump-conservatism-00138954

    Republicans are now a coalition of Trump populists who dislike big business, trade and NATO and the cucked Reaganites who represent big business, trade and NATO. Even if Trump left, the populists dont actually see Haley as on their side.

    There is a similar but smaller parallel here with the Trussites insisting Sunak is a Europhile liberal lefty despite all evidence to the contrary.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    edited February 1

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    I think this is key. I think politics is about how things feel, which admittedly is a nebulous concept to define, but do things feel great for the masses?

    If no, then is there something else to persuade them to stay the course?

    If yes, is there something else that will put people off the government?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    I look forward to the inevitable stories of rents coming down by 41% when interest rates come down.........
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,477
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, well it's just one poll but I have always thought that Biden's numbers will improve through the year.

    Haley's problem will be Trump - he will be a spoiler if he does not get the GOP nomination.

    Haley's problem is the Republicans (I never call them the 'GOP' given by most measures the Democrats are much older) have taken leave of their senses.

    There was a time when they wanted to actually win elections. If that still held good, she'd be storming clear in the primaries right now.
    26 points down in her home state.
    The party is probably irredeemable this cycle. They need to lose more than do the Tories.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514
    kle4 said:

    viewcode said:

    Ratters said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.

    Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent

    2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.

    We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.

    3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.

    Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.

    It must end.

    .


    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1753066693566611753?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.

    My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
    It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.

    Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
    Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.

    Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
    I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
    Can we split the difference?

    Most Muslims absolutely are not the problem. Secular Muslims are not a problem.

    The problem behind Islamic extremism though is Islam, just as the problem behind Christian extremism in the past (and still for many today) is Christianity.

    Thankfully Christian countries went through the Enlightenment and thankfully today most Christians in Europe at the least are more secular in their views and disregard the extremist elements of Christianity.

    We need Islam to undergo the same Enlightenment. Many Muslims are indeed enlightened and take their faith with appropriate grains of salt - that is not encouraged by people pretending that there is no problem in the religion itself - any more than it helps if people pretend there's no problems in the Bible itself.
    Indeed. A good analogy is Germany during the Nazi era

    Most Germans weren’t evil Nazis. Germany was a great nation with a magnificent cultural heritage. But a peculiar and unfortunate sequence of events allowed a small group of evil men to deceive a wider group of Germans into supporting them and they then bullied the rest of the nation into submission. And Nazi Germany was born

    Most Muslims do not support islamism. Islam is a great religion with a magnificent cultural heritage. But a peculiar sequence of events has allowed a relatively small cabal of fundamentalist freaks to
    pervert Islam to violent ends - and a lot of Muslims are bullied into silence by them, and thus entire nations have been captured - Iran is the classic
    example

    As both Mao and Mussolini observed, you don’t need vast armies to seize power over many millions of people, you just need a reasonable number of extreme, disciplined and aggressive fighters - the complacent majority will acquiesce in favour of a quiet life
    Sorry but I disagree with you. The problem is not that the cabal of freaks have perverted Islam to be violent. The problem is that Islam (like Christianity and other organised religions) is violent.

    The quran, like the Bible, is full of rotten, evil, horrid stuff that is appalling to modern, secular tastes. Thankfully most enlightened people disregard those elements, or even laugh at them.

    The problem is they are there, and the extremists are taking their instructions literally.

    Islamic extremists are beheading people not because they've twisted an angelic faith, but because the quran says to behead your enemies. Its there in black and white.

    The West Wing portrayed this excellently with Christianity, responding to those who latch on to some passages for eg homophobic reasons by going for even more extreme Biblical passages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

    The same that has been done with the Bible can be with the Quran - the zealots are those taking what does exist within the religion seriously, rather than with the appropriate and modern grains of salt.

    The modern way is to pervert religion to being something more secular and enlightened by disregarding the horrible passages. Lets not pretend they're not there, because they are, and being dishonest just isn't helpful.
    Some fair points, however Islam has not always been like this - literal, brutal, primitivist. That’s why the movement that is islamism was BORN in the 20th century - to take Islam back to some half-imagined purist past, severe and dogmatic, the religion of the baking desert

    There have been other Islams - much more tolerant and urbane. The Islam of Omar Khayyam and his jug of wine. The Islam of Al Andalus and the great Muslim scholars. The Islam of the Sufi mystics

    Islamism is ONE interpretation of Islam, barbaric and pugnacious. Unfortunately it is ascendant

    Maybe we should set-up a 'Mosque of England' that follows its Christian equivalent by minimising the religious part of religion to the fullest extent possible...
    That's not actually a stupid idea. Create an established Islamic church, train the Imams, licence them, and ensure only they get funded by the state.
    Grand Mufti Charles III?
    Are you suggesting that polygamy might suit him?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 24,726

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Because without the subsidy, there wouldn't be employers, low pay or otherwise. We have a massively burdensome tax regime, which affects businesses directly and indirectly (energy bills) and drives businesses to the wall, whereupon the Government must step in and offer subsidies, which businesses are meant to be grateful for.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, well it's just one poll but I have always thought that Biden's numbers will improve through the year.

    Haley's problem will be Trump - he will be a spoiler if he does not get the GOP nomination.

    Haley's problem is the Republicans (I never call them the 'GOP' given by most measures the Democrats are much older) have taken leave of their senses.

    There was a time when they wanted to actually win elections. If that still held good, she'd be storming clear in the primaries right now.
    26 points down in her home state.
    The party is probably irredeemable this cycle. They need to lose more than do the Tories.
    A credible third party option, and a 2.5 party system, would have been real useful right now.

    But as some others have suggested, it's not the time to try that out now. The dessicated husk of Biden is the priority choice right now, to get past this current mess.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244
    eek said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding the last estimate I saw is that we are missing 5 million+ homes - but we can't hike the minimum wage because when I look at the forthcoming increase it's at the point where it's once again dragging the next tier of jobs into minimum wage territory.
    Agree on both. Rather than further increase minimum wage think we could move up the income tax thresholds instead (old chestnut of merging NI helps again here).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,477
    MAGA world is about to meet Taylor Swift’s fandom — and it won’t go well.

    Brian Donovan, a professor who teaches the popular college course, “The Sociology of Taylor Swift,” explains why coming at Swift could backfire on the GOP

    https://twitter.com/politico/status/1753141682957115467
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,995

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,075

    eek said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding the last estimate I saw is that we are missing 5 million+ homes - but we can't hike the minimum wage because when I look at the forthcoming increase it's at the point where it's once again dragging the next tier of jobs into minimum wage territory.
    And the problem with that is?
    In two words, differentials and incentives.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,827
    eek said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding the last estimate I saw is that we are missing 5 million+ homes - but we can't hike the minimum wage because when I look at the forthcoming increase it's at the point where it's once again dragging the next tier of jobs into minimum wage territory.
    8 million fewer properties than France, with equivalent population.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,827
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    I confess not to know what to think about this stated plan - there's no definitive answer on what ratio of electors to representatives you should have. I mean, there are local councils with well north of 100 councillors. The New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400 for 1.4m people whilst Utah has 75 for 3.2m

    If Westminster were expanded in the way planned for the Senedd it would have more than 2,000 MPs, Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt has argued.

    Plans to raise the number of Senedd members from 60 to 96 cleared their first hurdle in Cardiff on Tuesday.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68172202

    I suppose the big question is how does raising by 36 make the Senedd more modern and better able to represent Wales, as the Welsh government states? Are the boundaries really bad?

    There must be examples when an elected (or unelected...) representative has proposed changes against their, or their parties, advantage?
    Robespierre's self-denying ordinance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-denying_Ordinance_(French_Revolution)

    Gladstone in 1884 conceded boundary changes to the Conservatives if he could keep control of the franchise. However, that probably was just idiocy instead of generosity.

    In 1928 the Conservatives brought in votes for women despite claims it would hurt them electorally. It is worth noting this was not the view of their own campaigning staff.

    After that I'm struggling.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-denying_Ordinance
    How was it against their political interests to strengthen the army officer corps?
    Because that army officer corps then turned on them?

    Granted, some of the ones involved in that were exempted from the Ordinance.
    I don't think that was the point of it!
    The ordinance was certainly against the interest of those who were taking a percentage of everything under their command, while not bothering to turn up for the war.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,190
    Enough about Michelle or Buttigieg at the convention. Using American data, I make it a ~40% actuarial chance Biden dies during his second term.

    Why instead doesn’t he just ditch Kamala and pick someone new and more popular as his veep? Election over. Unless Trump is off the scene. In which case, CONVENTION CANDIDATE!
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,743
    kle4 said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    I think this is key. I think politics is about how things feel, which admittedly is a nebulous concept to define, but do things feel great for the masses?

    If no, then is there something else to persuade them to stay the course?

    If yes, is there something else that will put people off the government?
    Depends which masses.

    One of the curiosities of the interest rate increases last year is that they left quite a few people better off. If you have a paid-off mortgage, or a fixed rate from a few years ago, you were getting more on your savings but not paying more on your mortgage.

    The time lag effect is going to play strangely this year. Even if headline rates fall, the unfortunate many will still see their mortgage payments go up. And as the former science minister can explain, that's a big effect, which tax cuts won't cancel out.

    Hence the "it's fine" / "it really isn't fine" dialogue of the deaf we get here and elsewhere.

    (As for rents, everyone knows that the market rent is "every penny the landlord can prise from your cold fingers, plus a few quid more." It's going to take a lot of building to shift that. But until we do, any other gains we make in the economy will eventually land in the bucket labelled "landlords".)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381
    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    No, these shares have over performed for a decade now but the companies you mention are so powerful it is hard to see them not being able to exploit the opportunities that develop and buy out those that might be a threat. Sooner or later we may have some revival of the anti-trust movement in the US but not under Biden or Trump.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619
    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,613
    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    There is a difference between 'having somewhere adequate to live' and 'a comfortable standard of living'.
    I would say that the former should be something that the state facilitates, or in some cases provides, for all its citizens.

    With something like this, the state accepts that it has a duty to house the family and children. The Council accommodate them as homeless, they get sent to a hotel costing £500 per week / £2000 per month - likely more than the increased rent of the house they have just got evicted from.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381
    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
  • No shit, Sherlock.

    Trump is to the GOP what Corbyn was to Labour.

    He may get devoted acolytes who love him, but he's toxic to everyone else and for everyone he attracts to the party he attracts more to the opposition to ensure he isn't elected.

    If the GOP is crazy enough to nominate Trump again, they deserve to lose - again.

    Hopefully a second defeat will be enough to knock some common sense into them. If not, let them keep learning the lesson until they do.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    There will be a big market for search engines that give you accurate results, though. :)
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619
    Nigelb said:

    MAGA world is about to meet Taylor Swift’s fandom — and it won’t go well.

    Brian Donovan, a professor who teaches the popular college course, “The Sociology of Taylor Swift,” explains why coming at Swift could backfire on the GOP

    https://twitter.com/politico/status/1753141682957115467

    Back in around 2010 when CERN caused that wormhole which put us on the doom-spiral of this timeline I said it was a bad thing. And here we are. I just hope Stephen Hawking and JRM are happy now after laughing at me so much in the endless anxiety dream that's followed.
  • DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619

    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    There will be a big market for search engines that give you accurate results, though. :)
    That's Perplexity's market in fact.
  • O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Because without the subsidy, there wouldn't be employers, low pay or otherwise. We have a massively burdensome tax regime, which affects businesses directly and indirectly (energy bills) and drives businesses to the wall, whereupon the Government must step in and offer subsidies, which businesses are meant to be grateful for.
    Subsidies? What subsidies?

    There's no such thing as a subsidy to employers. Quite the opposite, employers are taxed via National Insurance.

    People getting welfare because they have children != a subsidy for employers.

    Anyone childless working full time on Minimum Wage isn't entitled to a penny of income support. The state giving welfare to those who either don't work full time, don't work, or have kids, is not a subsidy to employers and is funded in part by heavily taxing employers.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705
    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    "the standard of living they think they are entitled to" = "housed, warm and fed", in this case.

    Maybe you're right though. Why did they have four children, how selfish of them. And yet, don't we have a demographic crisis? Don't we need more children?

    The couple I week or two ago, contemplating selling house and trying to rent because they can't afford the mortgage now - both working, both on minimum wage - they only had two children.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,737
    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    20 blue chips.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    But we are bearing that, not them. We are paying 75% of their rent for them, as well as the CB, as well as UC which will include the equivalent of WFTC.

    Let me put it this way. If he was earning 3x as much would they have been able to afford 4 kids in 10 years? Not. A. Chance.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,737

    No shit, Sherlock.

    Trump is to the GOP what Corbyn was to Labour.

    He may get devoted acolytes who love him, but he's toxic to everyone else and for everyone he attracts to the party he attracts more to the opposition to ensure he isn't elected.

    If the GOP is crazy enough to nominate Trump again, they deserve to lose - again.

    Hopefully a second defeat will be enough to knock some common sense into them. If not, let them keep learning the lesson until they do.


    He isn't like Corbyn, more's the pity.

    This poll is a total outlier, most show him ahead, and crucially, well ahead in States like Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Neavada.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,126
    moonshine said:

    Enough about Michelle or Buttigieg at the convention. Using American data, I make it a ~40% actuarial chance Biden dies during his second term.

    Why instead doesn’t he just ditch Kamala and pick someone new and more popular as his veep? Election over. Unless Trump is off the scene. In which case, CONVENTION CANDIDATE!

    Who? Kamala isn't unpopular because she's astonishingly terrible or anything, she's a competent politician who can deliver the lines. Her problem is that the left think she's a cop and the right think she wants to abolish cops. This would be solved one way or another by her becoming president and either abolishing the police or not in fact doing that.

    If they push her aside for someone who isn't a black woman they seriously cheese off important parts of the coalition. If Stacey Abrams had won in Georgia she would have a spicy electability argument but she lost.

    This TBF is the argument for Michelle Obama, but that doesn't work because she's not a politician and politics is in fact a skill that you have to know how to do, it's not enough to be famous. Also they've tried a less ridiculous version of running a wife of a former president before (she at least spent some time being a Senator then Secretary of State and she actually ran in the primaries) and it didn't go great for them.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705

    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    There will be a big market for search engines that give you accurate results, though. :)
    Amazon has made big money by having a spectacularly crappy search facility.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619
    edited February 1
    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    It has what's left of DeepMind - they're leaking researchers to competitors and start-ups like crazy. After they were roundly mocked for their Gemini release they've been losing even more. Stay at google - get partially the resource you need, deal with a tonne of corporate bullsh*t, rarely be allowed to even publish a paper, and certainly be very unlikely your work will turn into a product.

    Or leave, do what you like and potentially become a billionaire. Toughie.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,737
    Cicero said:

    I just came back from a concert of the music of Lord of the Rings. The orchestra was Ukrainian and most of them were not much more than teenagers, since older players are subject to the draft. Although not the greatest orchestra, it was really quite emotional to listen to the old tunes from the films, and also easy to remind yourself how much Tolkien´s book is about death. LoR really resonates with the Ukrainians as it is a straight up story of good versus evil and overcoming overwhelming odds. I found it all surprisingly moving.

    All of which makes Michael Moorcock's attack on Tolkien, inter alia, the claim he has nothing to say about death, so bizarre.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,182

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Nobody forced them to have four kids. They can suck it up.
  • DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,827
    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    NVIDIA and Apple have some of the best hardware - GPUs and M series chips respectively.

    The M series chips give Apple a big advantage in running LLMs locally.

    This kind of hardware advantage takes a big investment and some luck. Very hard to over turn anytime soon.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    There will be a big market for search engines that give you accurate results, though. :)
    That's Perplexity's market in fact.
    Their issue is that they don't have Google's original USP. People say Google's USP back in the late 90s to early 2000s was their search engine's quality.

    It wasn't.

    It was the fact they were not attempting to be a portal. On dialups, their rivals (remember AskJeeves?) would take an age to load. Google had a simple page that loaded virtually instantly, and gave answers in a similar manner. It wasn't the quality of the answers; it was the speed.

    If I was investing in a new mass web product, I would not be asking: "What is new?". Instead, I'd be asking; "what do people really want, but currently hate?"

    That's what Google answered back in ~1998.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,384
    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Things can only get better go on as they are.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Because without the subsidy, there wouldn't be employers, low pay or otherwise. We have a massively burdensome tax regime, which affects businesses directly and indirectly (energy bills) and drives businesses to the wall, whereupon the Government must step in and offer subsidies, which businesses are meant to be grateful for.
    Subsidies? What subsidies?

    There's no such thing as a subsidy to employers. Quite the opposite, employers are taxed via National Insurance.

    People getting welfare because they have children != a subsidy for employers.

    Anyone childless working full time on Minimum Wage isn't entitled to a penny of income support. The state giving welfare to those who either don't work full time, don't work, or have kids, is not a subsidy to employers and is funded in part by heavily taxing employers.
    Both can be (and are true): employers are taxed and their low pay is enabled by taxpayer subsidies.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 1,897

    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Things can only get better go on as they are.
    The biggest problem with Labour is that they are going to reopen the flood gates on low skill immigration.
  • ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    There will be a big market for search engines that give you accurate results, though. :)
    That's Perplexity's market in fact.
    Their issue is that they don't have Google's original USP. People say Google's USP back in the late 90s to early 2000s was their search engine's quality.

    It wasn't.

    It was the fact they were not attempting to be a portal. On dialups, their rivals (remember AskJeeves?) would take an age to load. Google had a simple page that loaded virtually instantly, and gave answers in a similar manner. It wasn't the quality of the answers; it was the speed.

    If I was investing in a new mass web product, I would not be asking: "What is new?". Instead, I'd be asking; "what do people really want, but currently hate?"

    That's what Google answered back in ~1998.
    It was both.

    Google really was much better at giving answers than AskJeeves etc was.

    Google was transformative because it just worked. It loaded, it gave the answers, and the answers were reasonable.

    Rivals were slow as you say, but gave bad answers far too often too.

    You don't need a magic bullet, you need a product that works.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,126
    Outlier poll, unless there's been a huge sudden turnaround. OTOH I think a lot of Biden's current unpopularity is self-reinforcing in that his polling is terrible so everyone talks about him not being up to it. If the polling gets better I think it feeds a virtuous circle, and if people see him debate or dealing with hecklers or whatever they'll see that although he's definitely very old, his brain works better than you'd think from the Discourse.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381
    Cicero said:

    I just came back from a concert of the music of Lord of the Rings. The orchestra was Ukrainian and most of them were not much more than teenagers, since older players are subject to the draft. Although not the greatest orchestra, it was really quite emotional to listen to the old tunes from the films, and also easy to remind yourself how much Tolkien´s book is about death. LoR really resonates with the Ukrainians as it is a straight up story of good versus evil and overcoming overwhelming odds. I found it all surprisingly moving.

    The Russians closed the border crossing at Narva last night, and within just a few miles of the border the Russians are still cleaning up after the attack on the gas condensate terminal at Ust Luga. More drone attacks in this direction seem likely, and there is a certain grim satisfaction that the Russians are getting a taste of their own medicine. The loss of yet another Russian warship means that by my estimate the Russian Black Sea fleet has lost a fifth of its firepower. An extraordinary situation considering that the Ukrainians do not have a navy. Also a terrible warning to countries, that have notably put all their eggs into two aircraft carrier baskets, how vulnerable capital ships have become.

    The fact that the EU is finally unblocking €50 billion is also a big positive. So the atmosphere here in the Baltic has lifted a bit. The long thaw of the past 10 days has also reduced energy consumption and in any event last week Estonia generated more by renewables than by thermal stations for the first time ever.

    Putin was in Kaliningrad a couple of days ago, but his shrill speech threatening the Baltics was pretty much ignored. We know Russia will attack if Ukraine falls. However Ukraine will not fall.

    As for Putin, the gathering unrest is slowly picking apart the ties that bind the Russian Federation. There are growing rumours of a ruthless crackdown to come after the Russian "election" takes place. As Russian borders close, and their economy plunges into a deep recession, the outlook for Moscow deteriorates still further. We are not yet at maximum danger, but there is a sense that the tide that has been running Russia´s way over the past six months may now have turned again.

    Let us hope that the message of courage that the Ukrainian orchestra was carrying today will in due course flower and bear fruit and that justice and freedom will have their day once again.

    It is hard to underestimate the importance of the £50bn package agreed by the EU this week. It makes continued defiance by Ukraine economically viable. That must have been a major blow to Putin after his partial successes in the Republican Congress. Still need ammunition, not a ride though.
  • O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Because without the subsidy, there wouldn't be employers, low pay or otherwise. We have a massively burdensome tax regime, which affects businesses directly and indirectly (energy bills) and drives businesses to the wall, whereupon the Government must step in and offer subsidies, which businesses are meant to be grateful for.
    Subsidies? What subsidies?

    There's no such thing as a subsidy to employers. Quite the opposite, employers are taxed via National Insurance.

    People getting welfare because they have children != a subsidy for employers.

    Anyone childless working full time on Minimum Wage isn't entitled to a penny of income support. The state giving welfare to those who either don't work full time, don't work, or have kids, is not a subsidy to employers and is funded in part by heavily taxing employers.
    Both can be (and are true): employers are taxed and their low pay is enabled by taxpayer subsidies.
    Not a penny of subsidy goes to the employer. Quite the opposite in fact.

    If someone is working 16 hours a week and seeking to support 4 children on that and getting welfare as a result, is it the employer's fault they're working part time and have 4 kids?

    Or as per your example, is not working at all and has 4 kids, is that the employers fault too?

    No employer impregnates their employees. Welfare for children or part timers has nothing to do with employment subsidies, which don't exist, employment is heavily taxed instead.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    Absolutely, and of course the first £50k of that unearned income is taxed at a rate 10% lower than earned income is.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 1,897

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    I look forward to the inevitable stories of rents coming down by 41% when interest rates come down.........
    It is supply and demand. If the landlord was overcharging, other landlords could under cut him. But in reality the landlord is charging high market prices because there are too many people and too few residences.
  • DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
    Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.

    Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 24,726
    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Do you really think Bankers were being paid less with the cap? They were getting their bonuses as salary - they were getting paid MORE. Why is this basic concept so difficult for some to grasp?
  • RattersRatters Posts: 717
    Regarding dental properties, I think there should be improved rights to long-term rental contracts with some pre-agreed inflation uplift (e.g. CPI).

    Property owners with large mortgages may get stung, but that's a risk they should be able to manage as a part of their investment.

    There is just no security for families renting in the current set-up.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619

    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Things can only get better go on as they are.
    "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a grey question mark stamping on a human face – for ever."
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,278

    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Do you really think Bankers were being paid less with the cap? They were getting their bonuses as salary - they were getting paid MORE. Why is this basic concept so difficult for some to grasp?
    It's not. But it also (in theory at least) means they should be taking less risky action to generate bonuses.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    There will be a big market for search engines that give you accurate results, though. :)
    That's Perplexity's market in fact.
    Their issue is that they don't have Google's original USP. People say Google's USP back in the late 90s to early 2000s was their search engine's quality.

    It wasn't.

    It was the fact they were not attempting to be a portal. On dialups, their rivals (remember AskJeeves?) would take an age to load. Google had a simple page that loaded virtually instantly, and gave answers in a similar manner. It wasn't the quality of the answers; it was the speed.

    If I was investing in a new mass web product, I would not be asking: "What is new?". Instead, I'd be asking; "what do people really want, but currently hate?"

    That's what Google answered back in ~1998.
    It was both.

    Google really was much better at giving answers than AskJeeves etc was.

    Google was transformative because it just worked. It loaded, it gave the answers, and the answers were reasonable.

    Rivals were slow as you say, but gave bad answers far too often too.

    You don't need a magic bullet, you need a product that works.
    I agree, but I differ on one point. From what I remember, the rivals gave bad answers and were slow. The initial iterations of Google's search (*) was also far from perfect, but was much, much faster, and less intrusive. You could do a search, and refine it, in the time it took Yahoo to answer one query.

    That mattered. And I fear the 'portal' approach favoured answers from their sponsors. Realistic or not, that's the impression I got. And Google's bare-boned approach removed that fear, at least visibly.

    (*) I can still say where I was sitting when someone first told me about them...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,827

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
    Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.

    Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
    A large part of the direct cost of building a house is labour. A large part of the cost for materials is labour.

    If we start house prices coming down, due to building more, the upwards pressures on labour costs will ease.

    And houses will get even cheaper.
  • kle4 said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    I think this is key. I think politics is about how things feel, which admittedly is a nebulous concept to define, but do things feel great for the masses?

    If no, then is there something else to persuade them to stay the course?

    If yes, is there something else that will put people off the government?
    If we did hit a "feel-good period" would the media tell us?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,827

    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Do you really think Bankers were being paid less with the cap? They were getting their bonuses as salary - they were getting paid MORE. Why is this basic concept so difficult for some to grasp?
    But It Showed They Cared.

    Performative Dance Politics.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    There will be a big market for search engines that give you accurate results, though. :)
    That's Perplexity's market in fact.
    Their issue is that they don't have Google's original USP. People say Google's USP back in the late 90s to early 2000s was their search engine's quality.

    It wasn't.

    It was the fact they were not attempting to be a portal. On dialups, their rivals (remember AskJeeves?) would take an age to load. Google had a simple page that loaded virtually instantly, and gave answers in a similar manner. It wasn't the quality of the answers; it was the speed.

    If I was investing in a new mass web product, I would not be asking: "What is new?". Instead, I'd be asking; "what do people really want, but currently hate?"

    That's what Google answered back in ~1998.
    You possibly underestimate how bad the web is for a lot of people - especially those without a thorough ad-blocker. Perplexity (or someone like them - maybe even google if they weren't busy eating themselves) producing relevant information without 100 popovers, cookie warnings, auto-play video adverts, tracking, "subscribe to our newsletter" popovers etc. I've seen regular people just blown away by it.

    Not sure if Perplexity will be 'the new google' - but something heading in that line is going to make a big dent in the older 'legacy' search engine market.

    It feels a bit like google did back in those days. "Ask my question, get relevant information, bail".
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
    Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.

    Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
    Housing is not scalable in the same way, and it's ridiculous to say it is. As I said, *billions* of ARM chips alone have been sold. 25 billion in 2020 alone. Comparing housing to that is... odd, for obvious reasons.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004

    kle4 said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    I think this is key. I think politics is about how things feel, which admittedly is a nebulous concept to define, but do things feel great for the masses?

    If no, then is there something else to persuade them to stay the course?

    If yes, is there something else that will put people off the government?
    If we did hit a "feel-good period" would the media tell us?
    Some would. But I don't think they can completely change minds - when we looked like we might be in technical recession during the coalition (latre revisions showed it was not) it didn't appear to seem that bad to a lot of people, so it didn't really matter. Similar lack of growth now would probably hit home harder.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381

    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Things can only get better go on as they are.
    Excellent comment. But we weren't supposed to have that confirmed until after the election.
  • ohnotnow said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    There will be a big market for search engines that give you accurate results, though. :)
    That's Perplexity's market in fact.
    Their issue is that they don't have Google's original USP. People say Google's USP back in the late 90s to early 2000s was their search engine's quality.

    It wasn't.

    It was the fact they were not attempting to be a portal. On dialups, their rivals (remember AskJeeves?) would take an age to load. Google had a simple page that loaded virtually instantly, and gave answers in a similar manner. It wasn't the quality of the answers; it was the speed.

    If I was investing in a new mass web product, I would not be asking: "What is new?". Instead, I'd be asking; "what do people really want, but currently hate?"

    That's what Google answered back in ~1998.
    You possibly underestimate how bad the web is for a lot of people - especially those without a thorough ad-blocker. Perplexity (or someone like them - maybe even google if they weren't busy eating themselves) producing relevant information without 100 popovers, cookie warnings, auto-play video adverts, tracking, "subscribe to our newsletter" popovers etc. I've seen regular people just blown away by it.

    Not sure if Perplexity will be 'the new google' - but something heading in that line is going to make a big dent in the older 'legacy' search engine market.

    It feels a bit like google did back in those days. "Ask my question, get relevant information, bail".
    I'm not convinced. The people who engage with ad-blockers etc are also those that would tend to be first adapters of new products, like early Google, like Mozilla (pre-Chrome and Firefox) instead of Internet Explorer etc - then they convince their friends and families, or install it at their workplace, and it spreads.

    Without that initial spark, its a lot harder to get people to switch. The people who can't be bothered to install Adblock, probably won't be bothered to change before someone else does either.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    ohnotnow said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    PBers!

    Investment advice please

    My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest

    But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc

    Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while

    Am i wrong?

    Might be worth keeping an ear out for some not-quite-ready AI companies like Mistral, Rain & Perplexity - or even some of the moonshot fusion start-ups. Don't think you can invest in them yet unless you have a few million to spare in seed rounds though.

    Google I'm really not sure about. Nvidia, Amazon, MS at least have concrete products. Feels like Google is eating itself from the inside - both technology-wise and corporate politics-wise.
    Google has DeepMind, which is no small thing

    Tho its search engine model is menaced by GPTs
    There will be a big market for search engines that give you accurate results, though. :)
    That's Perplexity's market in fact.
    Their issue is that they don't have Google's original USP. People say Google's USP back in the late 90s to early 2000s was their search engine's quality.

    It wasn't.

    It was the fact they were not attempting to be a portal. On dialups, their rivals (remember AskJeeves?) would take an age to load. Google had a simple page that loaded virtually instantly, and gave answers in a similar manner. It wasn't the quality of the answers; it was the speed.

    If I was investing in a new mass web product, I would not be asking: "What is new?". Instead, I'd be asking; "what do people really want, but currently hate?"

    That's what Google answered back in ~1998.
    You possibly underestimate how bad the web is for a lot of people - especially those without a thorough ad-blocker. Perplexity (or someone like them - maybe even google if they weren't busy eating themselves) producing relevant information without 100 popovers, cookie warnings, auto-play video adverts, tracking, "subscribe to our newsletter" popovers etc. I've seen regular people just blown away by it.

    Not sure if Perplexity will be 'the new google' - but something heading in that line is going to make a big dent in the older 'legacy' search engine market.

    It feels a bit like google did back in those days. "Ask my question, get relevant information, bail".
    That's fair enough, and I've never used Perplexity.

    I don't use adblockers for ... reasons, but I know lots of people who do. Yet I don't find ads too intrusive. I don't get frequent popups or autoplay adverts. But that might just be the sites I use.

    As for cookie warnings; they should just be once per site. The one on my own site reads: "This website uses cookies to help pay for this site via advertising. I do not take personal information from you, and I have no evil plans to take over the world, influence foreign elections or otherwise do evil. That's too much like hard work." :)
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 17,606
    edited February 1

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
    Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.

    Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
    Housing is not scalable in the same way, and it's ridiculous to say it is. As I said, *billions* of ARM chips alone have been sold. 25 billion in 2020 alone. Comparing housing to that is... odd, for obvious reasons.
    I never said scalable in the same way, nor does it need to be, it just needs to be scalable and it is.

    As I gave as an initial example, food has come down by 75% in cost since the 70s, that's not scaled like ARM has.

    Housing costs never used to be this expensive either, land never used to be this expensive, they are expensive solely because its scaled less than population has. If it scaled more than population does, then prices would collapse in real terms, which would be great news for all except those trying to sweat land for unearned wealth and income.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,570
    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Why is this a surprise? Sir Keir will backtrack on absolutely anything to wriggle out of scrutiny, the list is endless

    Maybe soon the Boris hater’s critical faculties will return & they’ll realise that Starmer is the biggest bluffer of them all


  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,243
    "Rolf Degen
    @DegenRolf

    Unelected elites such as lobbyists, civil servants, journalists, and the like massively overestimate how much the general population agrees with their own political views.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12833?campaign=wolearlyview"

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1752697320720961782
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,384
    isam said:

    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Why is this a surprise? Sir Keir will backtrack on absolutely anything to wriggle out of scrutiny, the list is endless

    Maybe soon the Boris hater’s critical faculties will return & they’ll realise that Starmer is the biggest bluffer of them all


    I’m just baffled at the way the whole thing has been handled . It just looks spineless . As for Reeves , don’t get me started !
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    "the standard of living they think they are entitled to" = "housed, warm and fed", in this case.

    Maybe you're right though. Why did they have four children, how selfish of them. And yet, don't we have a demographic crisis? Don't we need more children?

    The couple I week or two ago, contemplating selling house and trying to rent because they can't afford the mortgage now - both working, both on minimum wage - they only had two children.
    That's the problem with meritocracy. People deserve a decent life even if the system decides them to have little merit.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,591
    The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:

    "The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514
    Andy_JS said:

    "Rolf Degen
    @DegenRolf

    Unelected elites such as lobbyists, civil servants, journalists, and the like massively overestimate how much the general population agrees with their own political views.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12833?campaign=wolearlyview"

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1752697320720961782

    Even more true of right wing pundits and GB News presenters!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
    Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.

    Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
    Housing is not scalable in the same way, and it's ridiculous to say it is. As I said, *billions* of ARM chips alone have been sold. 25 billion in 2020 alone. Comparing housing to that is... odd, for obvious reasons.
    I never said scalable in the same way, nor does it need to be, it just needs to be scalable and it is.

    As I gave as an initial example, food has come down by 75% in cost since the 70s, that's not scaled like ARM has.

    Housing costs never used to be this expensive either, land never used to be this expensive, they are expensive solely because its scaled less than population has. If it scaled more than population does, then prices would collapse in real terms, which would be great news for all except those trying to sweat land for unearned wealth and income.
    It's nowhere near scalable enough, especially as the *quality* of what we rightly want increases. we want *better* housing, and that invariably costs more. Better insulation? it costs. Electric car chargers outside every new house? They cost.

    Usable land is finite; we rightly want better quality housing on the land. The 'quality' of the food has not increased massively since the 1970s; the places we are buying it from worldwide may have.

    I agree that planning is an issue; I just see that there are many other barriers to 'affordable' housing. Changing demographics, immigration, desires, legislation... they are all factors. And good luck in changing most of them. There's no way I'd touch a timber-framed mass-produced house, for instance, after the disasters in the 1980s.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Rolf Degen
    @DegenRolf

    Unelected elites such as lobbyists, civil servants, journalists, and the like massively overestimate how much the general population agrees with their own political views.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12833?campaign=wolearlyview"

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1752697320720961782

    Even more true of right wing pundits and GB News presenters!
    Most people see themselves as extremists, but when i comes to voting are actually centrists? ;)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 24,726
    Eabhal said:

    The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:

    "The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"

    You are 3 times more likely to be granted asylum in the UK than you are in France. That's a big reason for the boats. The people working in the Home Office system are useless at best.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,591
    edited February 1

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
    Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.

    Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
    Housing is not scalable in the same way, and it's ridiculous to say it is. As I said, *billions* of ARM chips alone have been sold. 25 billion in 2020 alone. Comparing housing to that is... odd, for obvious reasons.
    I never said scalable in the same way, nor does it need to be, it just needs to be scalable and it is.

    As I gave as an initial example, food has come down by 75% in cost since the 70s, that's not scaled like ARM has.

    Housing costs never used to be this expensive either, land never used to be this expensive, they are expensive solely because its scaled less than population has. If it scaled more than population does, then prices would collapse in real terms, which would be great news for all except those trying to sweat land for unearned wealth and income.
    It's nowhere near scalable enough, especially as the *quality* of what we rightly want increases. we want *better* housing, and that invariably costs more. Better insulation? it costs. Electric car chargers outside every new house? They cost.

    Usable land is finite; we rightly want better quality housing on the land. The 'quality' of the food has not increased massively since the 1970s; the places we are buying it from worldwide may have.

    I agree that planning is an issue; I just see that there are many other barriers to 'affordable' housing. Changing demographics, immigration, desires, legislation... they are all factors. And good luck in changing most of them. There's no way I'd touch a timber-framed mass-produced house, for instance, after the disasters in the 1980s.
    It is scalable. How do you provide more housing and services with less land, fewer building materials, more efficient transport options and lower running costs?

    Flats.
  • DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
    Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.

    Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
    Housing is not scalable in the same way, and it's ridiculous to say it is. As I said, *billions* of ARM chips alone have been sold. 25 billion in 2020 alone. Comparing housing to that is... odd, for obvious reasons.
    I never said scalable in the same way, nor does it need to be, it just needs to be scalable and it is.

    As I gave as an initial example, food has come down by 75% in cost since the 70s, that's not scaled like ARM has.

    Housing costs never used to be this expensive either, land never used to be this expensive, they are expensive solely because its scaled less than population has. If it scaled more than population does, then prices would collapse in real terms, which would be great news for all except those trying to sweat land for unearned wealth and income.
    It's nowhere near scalable enough, especially as the *quality* of what we rightly want increases. we want *better* housing, and that invariably costs more. Better insulation? it costs. Electric car chargers outside every new house? They cost.

    Usable land is finite; we rightly want better quality housing on the land. The 'quality' of the food has not increased massively since the 1970s; the places we are buying it from worldwide may have.

    I agree that planning is an issue; I just see that there are many other barriers to 'affordable' housing. Changing demographics, immigration, desires, legislation... they are all factors. And good luck in changing most of them. There's no way I'd touch a timber-framed mass-produced house, for instance, after the disasters in the 1980s.
    You're completely wrong. How much does insulation cost as percentage of a house? Bugger all, and most of the cost of that bugger all is labour.

    How much does land cost as a percentage of a house?

    You're quibbling with irrelevancies while ignoring the big picture. You can have well-built, affordable, plentiful homes.

    Indeed in countries that have liberated the planning system, that is exactly what happens. Better-built homes outcompete slum crap that people can reliably let out in the UK because there's no threat of competition.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,384
    Eabhal said:

    The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:

    "The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"

    That’s appalling. How on earth can you be granted asylum if you’ve been convicted of an offence.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,673
    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    Guardian are confirming the 28 billion pledge is being ditched . Together with Reeves pathetic defence of not bringing back the bankers bonus cap it’s been a woeful day for Labour .

    At the moment the biggest danger to a Labour GE win is Labour!

    They’re dropping a hugely popular policy because they’re terrified of Tory attacks . Utterly pathetic.

    Things can only get better go on as they are.
    The biggest problem with Labour is that they are going to reopen the flood gates on low skill immigration.
    reopen ? REOPEN ?!?
  • nico679 said:

    Eabhal said:

    The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:

    "The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"

    That’s appalling. How on earth can you be granted asylum if you’ve been convicted of an offence.
    Where in the law does it say the right to asylum doesn't apply to criminals?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    "the standard of living they think they are entitled to" = "housed, warm and fed", in this case.

    Maybe you're right though. Why did they have four children, how selfish of them. And yet, don't we have a demographic crisis? Don't we need more children?

    The couple I week or two ago, contemplating selling house and trying to rent because they can't afford the mortgage now - both working, both on minimum wage - they only had two children.
    That's the problem with meritocracy. People deserve a decent life even if the system decides them to have little merit.

    Define 'decent'.

    How much should people be protected from their own decisions? If I go out and waste money; become penniless through drink, drugs or gambling, do I personally deserve the same lifestyle as someone who has been careful and made better decisions? Sure, the welfare system should ensure I can *live*, but the same lifestyle?

    On the other hand, a friend of mine was the first in her family to go to uni, yet soon afterwards was struck down by a life-limiting illness. She made no decisions that contributed to her illness. Does she deserve the same lifestyle as someone who continuously makes bad decisions?

    If you say 'yes' to both of these, then I reckon the general public would disagree.

    And this opens a hornet's nest...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 57,807
    Eabhal said:

    The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:

    "The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"

    Starmer could make a major move here: announce a Labour government will split the Home Office, taking away any role with border security, asylum processing, deportations etc etc and putting all that in a new Cabinet-level department.

    Not fit for purpose.


  • .
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
    Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.

    Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
    Housing is not scalable in the same way, and it's ridiculous to say it is. As I said, *billions* of ARM chips alone have been sold. 25 billion in 2020 alone. Comparing housing to that is... odd, for obvious reasons.
    I never said scalable in the same way, nor does it need to be, it just needs to be scalable and it is.

    As I gave as an initial example, food has come down by 75% in cost since the 70s, that's not scaled like ARM has.

    Housing costs never used to be this expensive either, land never used to be this expensive, they are expensive solely because its scaled less than population has. If it scaled more than population does, then prices would collapse in real terms, which would be great news for all except those trying to sweat land for unearned wealth and income.
    It's nowhere near scalable enough, especially as the *quality* of what we rightly want increases. we want *better* housing, and that invariably costs more. Better insulation? it costs. Electric car chargers outside every new house? They cost.

    Usable land is finite; we rightly want better quality housing on the land. The 'quality' of the food has not increased massively since the 1970s; the places we are buying it from worldwide may have.

    I agree that planning is an issue; I just see that there are many other barriers to 'affordable' housing. Changing demographics, immigration, desires, legislation... they are all factors. And good luck in changing most of them. There's no way I'd touch a timber-framed mass-produced house, for instance, after the disasters in the 1980s.
    It is scalable. How do you provide more housing and services with less land, fewer building materials, more efficient transport options and lower running costs?

    Flats.
    Yes slums are scalable cheaply, but deal with the way the planning system warps competition and inflates the value of land and real actual homes can be built for cheaper instead.

    Stop this obsession of cramming people into slum flats instead of actual houses.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,619
    nico679 said:

    Eabhal said:

    The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:

    "The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"

    That’s appalling. How on earth can you be granted asylum if you’ve been convicted of an offence.
    I don’t know, but I think it’s probably Starmers fault.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072

    DavidL said:

    EPG said:

    O/T right away, sorry.

    Today's Britain:

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.

    They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.

    They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.

    What kind of messed-up country have we become where:

    1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live?
    2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?

    We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.

    Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.

    We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?

    Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
    That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
    Partially yes, but partially no.

    If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.

    It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
    Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.

    If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.

    I don't know what the answer is.
    That's absurd and illogical thinking.

    Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).

    Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.

    It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
    I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).

    We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
    Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.

    Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
    Housing is not scalable in the same way, and it's ridiculous to say it is. As I said, *billions* of ARM chips alone have been sold. 25 billion in 2020 alone. Comparing housing to that is... odd, for obvious reasons.
    I never said scalable in the same way, nor does it need to be, it just needs to be scalable and it is.

    As I gave as an initial example, food has come down by 75% in cost since the 70s, that's not scaled like ARM has.

    Housing costs never used to be this expensive either, land never used to be this expensive, they are expensive solely because its scaled less than population has. If it scaled more than population does, then prices would collapse in real terms, which would be great news for all except those trying to sweat land for unearned wealth and income.
    It's nowhere near scalable enough, especially as the *quality* of what we rightly want increases. we want *better* housing, and that invariably costs more. Better insulation? it costs. Electric car chargers outside every new house? They cost.

    Usable land is finite; we rightly want better quality housing on the land. The 'quality' of the food has not increased massively since the 1970s; the places we are buying it from worldwide may have.

    I agree that planning is an issue; I just see that there are many other barriers to 'affordable' housing. Changing demographics, immigration, desires, legislation... they are all factors. And good luck in changing most of them. There's no way I'd touch a timber-framed mass-produced house, for instance, after the disasters in the 1980s.
    You're completely wrong. How much does insulation cost as percentage of a house? Bugger all, and most of the cost of that bugger all is labour.

    How much does land cost as a percentage of a house?

    You're quibbling with irrelevancies while ignoring the big picture. You can have well-built, affordable, plentiful homes.

    Indeed in countries that have liberated the planning system, that is exactly what happens. Better-built homes outcompete slum crap that people can reliably let out in the UK because there's no threat of competition.
    Insulation can cost a lot, both in terms of substance, installation and design. And add in all the other legislation as well. It all adds up.

    But that's the killer; all those things are justifiable. Building homes outside city centres without electric car chargers nowadays is madness. Yet they cost.

    Do you have reliable sources for your claims about other countries? Because I bet there are plenty of other factors in play. And as an aside, I've been stating the poor quality of new-build houses on here for many, many years. Including pictures... ;)

    No-one's building new land.
This discussion has been closed.