Truly the age of infinite media budget growth is over. 900 job cuts at Playstation, my former studio closed for good 😢 and budget constraint across the board.
The same is true across the games, TV and movie industries. No one can justify the $300m budget for a single season of a TV show, a single movie or game any more. I think Spider-Man 2 on PS5 will be seen as the turning point. I've heard from old colleagues that the internal retro from senior management at Playstation was scathing about budget control, a game which had 60-70% asset reuse still managed to cost them $310m to make and 4.5 years of development time for a game that was only rated at 20ish hours vs the original at 40ish hours for $140m and 3 years dev time.
I actually think this will end up being a good thing for the media industries as companies are forced to become more creative again and stop relying on ever increasing budgets to cover up poor efficiency. In gaming, it seems as though Asia/Japan is once again teaching western developers how to do it properly, they seem to have got budget control, games which are successful and have 3-4 year development timeframes rather than 4-6 years in the west with studios of 150-200 people and not 400-500.
In movies it's all changing, because box office receipts are falling for all but the biggest event movies studios are having to actually plan budgets properly and I think we'll see loads more $30-50m productions and 90-110 minute long movies rather than the standard fare $200m 2.5h long movie.
In 3 or 4 years movies, TV shows and games will be a completely different landscape. I think for the better. One of the studios that Playstation works with has a motto "a game for everyone is a game for no one" and that seems to finally be dawning across all media companies.
Anyway, just a random aside for the evening.
MOTA which cost trillions and took decades to make, and still managed to be stunningly mediocre on release, being a case in point.
Rings of Power too. They spent $350m to make one season, tried to make a show that appealed to "everyone" and in the end the people who want to watch Tolkien all hated it and stopped watching while the intended "new" audience didn't turn up so overall it completely flopped.
No we didn't. There was a vocal minority of Tolkein fans who disliked it (and who had decided they hated it even bofore the first episode had been aired) and its viewing figures exceeded those of Game of Thrones (Though not House of Dragons). Even though viewing figures dropped throughout the series it was still by far Amazon's most watched to date.
I've seen the estimated viewing figures and it doesn't get close to the likes of Stranger Things. You also can't compare it to Game of Thrones because that was pre-streaming. If you include piracy in the numbers for both (the only reasonable proxy for streaming) then RoP is tiny in comparison, especially towards the end.
The viewing figures completely tanked over the whole season and I've heard that Amazon are resigned to the second season performing poorly already. It became a bit of a laughing stock and case study for rival streaming companies. At least Netflix got 2 seasons out of The Witcher before everyone gave up in season 3.
The problems with RoP were that they too k a brilliant property (Tolkien), got some genuine experts* on the pile of stuff they licensed…. And then stitched it together with bizarre, terrible writing.
Peter Jackson has told of how he had to fight studio executives who would demand weird, brainless changes to Lord Of The Rings. Looks like this time they got their way.
*Wizards, origin of orcs, the two trees, Morgoth’s Ring, Sauron trying to repent but getting it wrong because of his pride and unreformed nature… just a few of the things they got perfectly right.
I just finished reading the Silmarillion and there was nothing in Akalabeth about Galadriel going to Numenor with Sauron. In fact Sauron only set foot on Numenor when the usurper king defeated Sauron in middle earth and took him prisoner where he then wormed his way into being a key adviser and reintroduced human sacrifice and worship of Morgoth among men.
And very specifically Gandalf/Olorin isn't mentioned in the first or second ages, he only arrived in the third age. Yet in RoP we have got Gandalf in the first/second age.
I have absolutely zero problem with changing things, in fact one of my big concerns early on was when they said it would be super faithful, because that would hamstring them by binding them too closely to the lore. It only matters if changes are done well, and for an actual purpose narratively or thematically.
So I enjoyed the show fine, and thought some of the complaints overblown (like about Galadriel being all sword fighty and stuff), but I do think it was not very well strung together or written, and that is a problem when uber-fans don't seem like sticking around, because the casual fans won't either if it is not great.
Bad writing, however, can be addressed fairly simply, even if they don't/cannot fix things super fans did not enjoy. I'm not very confident in the ability of shows to address such problems though, outside Picard Season 3 (reportedly).
Indeed the criticisms of Galadriel's portrayal were particularly dumb and seem to have been made by those who only know her from the films - or at best from reading only the Lord of the Rings.
She led the rebellion of the Noldor in Valinor and was open in her ambition to rule a kingdom of her own in Middle Earth. She certainly wasn't the goody goody fairy queen some seem to think.
The person who played her in the series done a fine job. When they were on the big ship and her cabin mate Sauron was teasing her about the quality of breakfast, she looked just like an elf would look like first thing in the morning before a comb and coffee.
Truly the age of infinite media budget growth is over. 900 job cuts at Playstation, my former studio closed for good 😢 and budget constraint across the board.
The same is true across the games, TV and movie industries. No one can justify the $300m budget for a single season of a TV show, a single movie or game any more. I think Spider-Man 2 on PS5 will be seen as the turning point. I've heard from old colleagues that the internal retro from senior management at Playstation was scathing about budget control, a game which had 60-70% asset reuse still managed to cost them $310m to make and 4.5 years of development time for a game that was only rated at 20ish hours vs the original at 40ish hours for $140m and 3 years dev time.
I actually think this will end up being a good thing for the media industries as companies are forced to become more creative again and stop relying on ever increasing budgets to cover up poor efficiency. In gaming, it seems as though Asia/Japan is once again teaching western developers how to do it properly, they seem to have got budget control, games which are successful and have 3-4 year development timeframes rather than 4-6 years in the west with studios of 150-200 people and not 400-500.
In movies it's all changing, because box office receipts are falling for all but the biggest event movies studios are having to actually plan budgets properly and I think we'll see loads more $30-50m productions and 90-110 minute long movies rather than the standard fare $200m 2.5h long movie.
In 3 or 4 years movies, TV shows and games will be a completely different landscape. I think for the better. One of the studios that Playstation works with has a motto "a game for everyone is a game for no one" and that seems to finally be dawning across all media companies.
Anyway, just a random aside for the evening.
MOTA which cost trillions and took decades to make, and still managed to be stunningly mediocre on release, being a case in point.
Rings of Power too. They spent $350m to make one season, tried to make a show that appealed to "everyone" and in the end the people who want to watch Tolkien all hated it and stopped watching while the intended "new" audience didn't turn up so overall it completely flopped.
No we didn't. There was a vocal minority of Tolkein fans who disliked it (and who had decided they hated it even bofore the first episode had been aired) and its viewing figures exceeded those of Game of Thrones (Though not House of Dragons). Even though viewing figures dropped throughout the series it was still by far Amazon's most watched to date.
I've seen the estimated viewing figures and it doesn't get close to the likes of Stranger Things. You also can't compare it to Game of Thrones because that was pre-streaming. If you include piracy in the numbers for both (the only reasonable proxy for streaming) then RoP is tiny in comparison, especially towards the end.
The viewing figures completely tanked over the whole season and I've heard that Amazon are resigned to the second season performing poorly already. It became a bit of a laughing stock and case study for rival streaming companies. At least Netflix got 2 seasons out of The Witcher before everyone gave up in season 3.
The problems with RoP were that they too k a brilliant property (Tolkien), got some genuine experts* on the pile of stuff they licensed…. And then stitched it together with bizarre, terrible writing.
Peter Jackson has told of how he had to fight studio executives who would demand weird, brainless changes to Lord Of The Rings. Looks like this time they got their way.
*Wizards, origin of orcs, the two trees, Morgoth’s Ring, Sauron trying to repent but getting it wrong because of his pride and unreformed nature… just a few of the things they got perfectly right.
I just finished reading the Silmarillion and there was nothing in Akalabeth about Galadriel going to Numenor with Sauron. In fact Sauron only set foot on Numenor when the usurper king defeated Sauron in middle earth and took him prisoner where he then wormed his way into being a key adviser and reintroduced human sacrifice and worship of Morgoth among men.
And very specifically Gandalf/Olorin isn't mentioned in the first or second ages, he only arrived in the third age. Yet in RoP we have got Gandalf in the first/second age.
There are at least three separate places in Tolkien's writings where he indicates Gandalf was in Middle Earth in the First and Second Ages. Given the extreme limitations placed on Rings of Power by the Tolkien estate - including being forbidden from directly referencing anything written in the Silmarillion - it is not surprising they are having to fill in the gaps based on other Tolkien sources.
My only memory of reading The Silmarillion is endless "As was said by Bleurgh, son of Troulgh, Grandson on Meaurgh, Great Grandson of ...."
My take on Tomorrows I front page main headline is ignore it. We are going to get a lot of “is Labours poll lead soft” headlines to try and generate some excitement and grab headlines from here on in.
However, there in bottom right of same papers front page is a story rather revealing and serious.
FIRST TIME BUYERS PRICED OUT, AS WALL STREET LANDLORDS BUY UP NEW BUILDS.
This is a classic example of "sounds simple, but actually quite complex, and has loads of unintended knock on effects."
Start off with the easy bit: let's say that a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay... is he not allowed to own British property without having taken out British citizenship? What about having a valid visa? Or having indefinite right to remain?
And then you have the more complex questions: British Land is a PLC. Is it allowed to have foreign shareholders? (I.e. can a Swiss pension fund own shares in it?) What happens if all the shares are now owned by foreigners?
And is this residential only, or is it commercial and industrial? Would a South Korean firm build a battery factory if it wasn't allowed to own the land on which it built the factory?
And then there is the question of our existing treaty obligations: are we planning on repudiating agreements where foreigners are allowed to invest in the UK (including land)?
(I found the program interesting, but was distressed when I saw a similar reaction to the secretary's from one of my relatives: 'Some of ELIZA's responses were so convincing that Weizenbaum and several others have anecdotes of users becoming emotionally attached to the program, occasionally forgetting that they were conversing with a computer.[3] Weizenbaum's own secretary reportedly asked Weizenbaum to leave the room so that she and ELIZA could have a real conversation. Weizenbaum was surprised by this, later writing: "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people."'
Polling by DeltaPoll for Channel 4 News suggests that three quarters of voters want to see taxes retained where they are now, or increased, because they care more about funding public services. In its summary of the findings C4 News says:
The poll of 1,500 UK voters, conducted between 23-26 February is released today ahead of the spring budget 2024 next week. The new data shows that more than four in ten respondents (41%) believed that taxes and public spending should be kept at the level they are now. A further third (34%) said they would like to see taxes increased with greater spending on public services, while one in seven (14%) believed that taxes and public spending should be reduced. Among Conservative voters, that figure rose only marginally to one in six (17%). When asked to rank a list of economic priorities, voters placed cutting taxes fourth (11%), after growing the economy (23%), reducing inflation (22%), and investing in public service (12%), with 8% choosing to prioritise reducing the national debt, a cornerstone of shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves’ economic policy.
I wonder if they were asked if 'taxes should go up' or if 'their taxes should go up'? Lots of people seem to be happy to see others pay more tax whilst being opposed to their own taxes going up.
At the last count there were 23m people happy to see others pay more tax but not their own, and a further 21m who love to point this out every time anyone suggests increasing taxes.
Simply pointing out a truth - it undermines all these sorts of polls.
Ask people if they would be willing (note I don't try to influence it by saying 'happy') to pay more tax themselves and I suspect the answer would be very different from that shown in this poll. It is always easy to insist on sacrifices by others whilst preserving ones own advantages. That is reality and any poll that does not take this into account is worthless.
Everyone is right to say that they would not be happy to pay more. Even the lowest taxed of us (within the system, not wealthy tax exiles) pays too much.
The state is pumping north of £20bn into the rental market every year, which is massively distorting the market and pushing up costs for working people.
Before messing around with restricting foreign ownership we need to kick away the various props that make housing more expensive than it needs to be.
Truly the age of infinite media budget growth is over. 900 job cuts at Playstation, my former studio closed for good 😢 and budget constraint across the board.
The same is true across the games, TV and movie industries. No one can justify the $300m budget for a single season of a TV show, a single movie or game any more. I think Spider-Man 2 on PS5 will be seen as the turning point. I've heard from old colleagues that the internal retro from senior management at Playstation was scathing about budget control, a game which had 60-70% asset reuse still managed to cost them $310m to make and 4.5 years of development time for a game that was only rated at 20ish hours vs the original at 40ish hours for $140m and 3 years dev time.
I actually think this will end up being a good thing for the media industries as companies are forced to become more creative again and stop relying on ever increasing budgets to cover up poor efficiency. In gaming, it seems as though Asia/Japan is once again teaching western developers how to do it properly, they seem to have got budget control, games which are successful and have 3-4 year development timeframes rather than 4-6 years in the west with studios of 150-200 people and not 400-500.
In movies it's all changing, because box office receipts are falling for all but the biggest event movies studios are having to actually plan budgets properly and I think we'll see loads more $30-50m productions and 90-110 minute long movies rather than the standard fare $200m 2.5h long movie.
In 3 or 4 years movies, TV shows and games will be a completely different landscape. I think for the better. One of the studios that Playstation works with has a motto "a game for everyone is a game for no one" and that seems to finally be dawning across all media companies.
Anyway, just a random aside for the evening.
MOTA which cost trillions and took decades to make, and still managed to be stunningly mediocre on release, being a case in point.
Rings of Power too. They spent $350m to make one season, tried to make a show that appealed to "everyone" and in the end the people who want to watch Tolkien all hated it and stopped watching while the intended "new" audience didn't turn up so overall it completely flopped.
No we didn't. There was a vocal minority of Tolkein fans who disliked it (and who had decided they hated it even bofore the first episode had been aired) and its viewing figures exceeded those of Game of Thrones (Though not House of Dragons). Even though viewing figures dropped throughout the series it was still by far Amazon's most watched to date.
I've seen the estimated viewing figures and it doesn't get close to the likes of Stranger Things. You also can't compare it to Game of Thrones because that was pre-streaming. If you include piracy in the numbers for both (the only reasonable proxy for streaming) then RoP is tiny in comparison, especially towards the end.
The viewing figures completely tanked over the whole season and I've heard that Amazon are resigned to the second season performing poorly already. It became a bit of a laughing stock and case study for rival streaming companies. At least Netflix got 2 seasons out of The Witcher before everyone gave up in season 3.
The problems with RoP were that they too k a brilliant property (Tolkien), got some genuine experts* on the pile of stuff they licensed…. And then stitched it together with bizarre, terrible writing.
Peter Jackson has told of how he had to fight studio executives who would demand weird, brainless changes to Lord Of The Rings. Looks like this time they got their way.
*Wizards, origin of orcs, the two trees, Morgoth’s Ring, Sauron trying to repent but getting it wrong because of his pride and unreformed nature… just a few of the things they got perfectly right.
I just finished reading the Silmarillion and there was nothing in Akalabeth about Galadriel going to Numenor with Sauron. In fact Sauron only set foot on Numenor when the usurper king defeated Sauron in middle earth and took him prisoner where he then wormed his way into being a key adviser and reintroduced human sacrifice and worship of Morgoth among men.
And very specifically Gandalf/Olorin isn't mentioned in the first or second ages, he only arrived in the third age. Yet in RoP we have got Gandalf in the first/second age.
There are at least three separate places in Tolkien's writings where he indicates Gandalf was in Middle Earth in the First and Second Ages. Given the extreme limitations placed on Rings of Power by the Tolkien estate - including being forbidden from directly referencing anything written in the Silmarillion - it is not surprising they are having to fill in the gaps based on other Tolkien sources.
My only memory of reading The Silmarillion is endless "As was said by Bleurgh, son of Troulgh, Grandson on Meaurgh, Great Grandson of ...."
Once you get through the "Joseph begat Josiah" bits that are very biblical it's brilliant and probably got some of the most epic fantasy stories ever written.
Whether you think they’re intelligent or not is really irrelevant to their utility.
This is a breakthrough in practical application of AI!
Klarnas AI assistant, powered by @OpenAI, has in its first 4 weeks handled 2.3 m customer service chats and the data and insights are staggering:
- Handles 2/3 rd of our customer service enquires - On par with humans on customer satisfaction - Higher accuracy leading to a 25% reduction in repeat inquiries - Customer resolves their errands in 2 min vs 11 min - Live 24/7 in over 23 markets, communicating in over 35 languages
It performs the equivalent job of 700 full time agents... read more about this below.
So while we are happy about the results for our customers, our employees who have developed it and our shareholders, it raises the topic of the implications it will have for society.
In our case, customer service has been handled by on average 3000 full time agents employed by our customer service / outsourcing partners. Those partners employ 200 000 people, so in the short term this will only mean that those agents will work for other customers of those partners.
But in the longer term, as more companies adopt these technologies, we believe society needs to consider the impact. While it may be a positive impact for society as a whole, we need to consider the implications for the individuals affected.
We decided to share these statistics to raise the awareness and encourage a proactive approach to the topic of AI. For decision makers worldwide to recognise this is not just "in the future", this is happening right now. https://twitter.com/klarnaseb/status/1762508581679640814
The state is pumping north of £20bn into the rental market every year, which is massively distorting the market and pushing up costs for working people.
Before messing around with restricting foreign ownership we need to kick away the various props that make housing more expensive than it needs to be.
This is spot on:
However... this is a non trivial problem to solve, because the transition would be extremely painful.
My take on Tomorrows I front page main headline is ignore it. We are going to get a lot of “is Labours poll lead soft” headlines to try and generate some excitement and grab headlines from here on in.
However, there in bottom right of same papers front page is a story rather revealing and serious.
FIRST TIME BUYERS PRICED OUT, AS WALL STREET LANDLORDS BUY UP NEW BUILDS.
This is a classic example of "sounds simple, but actually quite complex, and has loads of unintended knock on effects."
Start off with the easy bit: let's say that a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay... is he not allowed to own British property without having taken out British citizenship? What about having a valid visa? Or having indefinite right to remain?
And then you have the more complex questions: British Land is a PLC. Is it allowed to have foreign shareholders? (I.e. can a Swiss pension fund own shares in it?) What happens if all the shares are now owned by foreigners?
And is this residential only, or is it commercial and industrial? Would a South Korean firm build a battery factory if it wasn't allowed to own the land on which it built the factory?
And then there is the question of our existing treaty obligations: are we planning on repudiating agreements where foreigners are allowed to invest in the UK (including land)?
You'd limit land ownership so that non-resident people or non-citizens can't own land/property. Domiciled companies and subsidiary companies could though. So Google couldn't, but Google UK which is a UK domiciled subsidiary that is less than 50% property could. Foreign property "investors" can take a running jump though, they are of little to no value to the UK economy.
Like JosiasJessop, I enjoy talking to people I have just met -- most of the time*. Since the US is in a bad mood these days, I often start by telling the people jokes, or funny stories:
For example, here's one I told this morning: Early in Lincoln's first term, he had to fill thousands of positions. An office seeker came in to see him and demanded to know why Lincoln hadn't given the man a job, yet. The job seeker told Lincoln that Lincoln owed him a job since he had gotten Lincoln the presidency; Lincoln pointed at the pile of papers on his desk, and said: "And look what a pretty mess you got me into."
*A year or so ago, I ran into a young woman who, with no prompting on my part, told me she was a socialist. So I told her an old standard: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way round." (She didn't enjoy the joke. Unfortunately.)
Polling by DeltaPoll for Channel 4 News suggests that three quarters of voters want to see taxes retained where they are now, or increased, because they care more about funding public services. In its summary of the findings C4 News says:
The poll of 1,500 UK voters, conducted between 23-26 February is released today ahead of the spring budget 2024 next week. The new data shows that more than four in ten respondents (41%) believed that taxes and public spending should be kept at the level they are now. A further third (34%) said they would like to see taxes increased with greater spending on public services, while one in seven (14%) believed that taxes and public spending should be reduced. Among Conservative voters, that figure rose only marginally to one in six (17%). When asked to rank a list of economic priorities, voters placed cutting taxes fourth (11%), after growing the economy (23%), reducing inflation (22%), and investing in public service (12%), with 8% choosing to prioritise reducing the national debt, a cornerstone of shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves’ economic policy.
I wonder if they were asked if 'taxes should go up' or if 'their taxes should go up'? Lots of people seem to be happy to see others pay more tax whilst being opposed to their own taxes going up.
Yeah, maybe, I haven't seen the question.
Doesn't that work the other way too though? Only 14% said they thought taxes should be cut - presumably they weren't assuming that would only be other people's taxes cut.
My brother surprised me the other day. He voted Tory in 2019 (liked Boris, wanted Brexit done) he's in the working but struggling category but said he'd prefer to pay a bit more tax and have public services that work.
I really do wonder if the Tories have got this whole 'tax cuts' thing right.
No party either raising or lowering taxes will be thanked by the public. Tax cuts never deliver as much back into people's pockets as they think they should and so they will show little or no gratitude whilst tax rises simply remind people of how much they are already paying and give them more excuses to hate the politicians.
tax should be set at the level that does the best for the economy and the country. Using them to bribe or punish the electorate is a fools game. So whilst I think taxes are way too high (by which I actually mean the state is way too large) that is irrelevant in this instance. What I am arguing about is the value - or lack of it - of these sorts of polls.
Which things do you think the state should drop that it currently does?
I answered this the other day. I think they should drop the universal pension and all the other Retirement benefits and have them means tested. Our whole social security system should return to what it was originally intended for which is a safety net. Now it is used partly to fulfill the idea of social and ecomomic equality and mostly as a means to bribe certain sections of the electorate which vary depending on which party is in power.
Yes, sorry, I remember. Unfortunately your suggestion is totally untenable, politically. Any party including it in their manifesto would make Theresa May's campaign look inspired.
Agreed. But that applies to many things that should be done and is no excuse for not doing them. If Starmer gets a big majority then he should have the courage to do these things as soon as possible and hope that the 5 years he has before the next election is long enough to prove him right.
But sadly, as the article in the Guardian said today, like the SPD in Germany, he will be too cautious and so will achieve nothing of consequence beyond increasing dissatisfaction with the current political duopoly
I can do this better:
- Treat all benefits as taxable income (currently disability benefits are not taxable). - Replace the triple lock with a simple link to CPI. - Roll ee NI into ICT (and thus extend it to all income). - Remove special treatment of investment income. - Introduce a wealth tax and use it to reduce employer's NI. - Replace CT with a land tax, supplemented with a per person grant to councils from central taxation. - Increase minimum wage (to reduce UC employment subsidies). - Remove non-Dom status. - Introduce a UK FATCA.- Force councils to build a (big) set quota of social housing every year + encourage right to buy. - Abolish IHT but treat inheritances/gifts as income (allow to be taxed as if spread over 10 years). - Abolish CGT but treat above inflation gains as income for ICT purposes. - Most controversially perhaps, abolish ISAs, past and future.
It's a mixture of: reducing government spending on benefits, closing off tax exemptions, and moving taxation from income to wealth.
The state is pumping north of £20bn into the rental market every year, which is massively distorting the market and pushing up costs for working people.
Before messing around with restricting foreign ownership we need to kick away the various props that make housing more expensive than it needs to be.
This is spot on:
However... this is a non trivial problem to solve, because the transition would be extremely painful.
The state is pumping north of £20bn into the rental market every year, which is massively distorting the market and pushing up costs for working people.
Before messing around with restricting foreign ownership we need to kick away the various props that make housing more expensive than it needs to be.
This is spot on:
However... this is a non trivial problem to solve, because the transition would be extremely painful.
It's normally the job of the 'nasty party' to take the blame for fixing problems like that, but they wanted to be liked...
My take on Tomorrows I front page main headline is ignore it. We are going to get a lot of “is Labours poll lead soft” headlines to try and generate some excitement and grab headlines from here on in.
However, there in bottom right of same papers front page is a story rather revealing and serious.
FIRST TIME BUYERS PRICED OUT, AS WALL STREET LANDLORDS BUY UP NEW BUILDS.
This is a classic example of "sounds simple, but actually quite complex, and has loads of unintended knock on effects."
Start off with the easy bit: let's say that a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay... is he not allowed to own British property without having taken out British citizenship? What about having a valid visa? Or having indefinite right to remain?
And then you have the more complex questions: British Land is a PLC. Is it allowed to have foreign shareholders? (I.e. can a Swiss pension fund own shares in it?) What happens if all the shares are now owned by foreigners?
And is this residential only, or is it commercial and industrial? Would a South Korean firm build a battery factory if it wasn't allowed to own the land on which it built the factory?
And then there is the question of our existing treaty obligations: are we planning on repudiating agreements where foreigners are allowed to invest in the UK (including land)?
You'd limit land ownership so that non-resident people or non-citizens can't own land/property. Domiciled companies and subsidiary companies could though. So Google couldn't, but Google UK which is a UK domiciled subsidiary that is less than 50% property could. Foreign property "investors" can take a running jump though, they are of little to no value to the UK economy.
The bar for banning things should always be a relatively high one: personally, I think the right solution is to tax properties which people aren't living in. Instead of getting a discount on Council Tax for not having people living in a property, you should pay extra. And every year that the property is unoccupied, the tax should rise.
No one would then sit on a property - unused, gathering dust - then. They would either sell it, or they would rent it out.
Both those things would increase the availability of housing.
The state is pumping north of £20bn into the rental market every year, which is massively distorting the market and pushing up costs for working people.
Before messing around with restricting foreign ownership we need to kick away the various props that make housing more expensive than it needs to be.
This is spot on:
However... this is a non trivial problem to solve, because the transition would be extremely painful.
It's normally the job of the 'nasty party' to take the blame for fixing problems like that, but they wanted to be liked...
Don't be silly, the Nasty Party make those problems. Who do you think all those property moguls and BTL landlords vote for?
My take on Tomorrows I front page main headline is ignore it. We are going to get a lot of “is Labours poll lead soft” headlines to try and generate some excitement and grab headlines from here on in.
However, there in bottom right of same papers front page is a story rather revealing and serious.
FIRST TIME BUYERS PRICED OUT, AS WALL STREET LANDLORDS BUY UP NEW BUILDS.
This is a classic example of "sounds simple, but actually quite complex, and has loads of unintended knock on effects."
Start off with the easy bit: let's say that a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay... is he not allowed to own British property without having taken out British citizenship? What about having a valid visa? Or having indefinite right to remain?
And then you have the more complex questions: British Land is a PLC. Is it allowed to have foreign shareholders? (I.e. can a Swiss pension fund own shares in it?) What happens if all the shares are now owned by foreigners?
And is this residential only, or is it commercial and industrial? Would a South Korean firm build a battery factory if it wasn't allowed to own the land on which it built the factory?
And then there is the question of our existing treaty obligations: are we planning on repudiating agreements where foreigners are allowed to invest in the UK (including land)?
Let's go thru it
Scenario 1: a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay. Can he buy property without being a British national? No
Scenario 2: a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay. Can he buy property after becoming a British national? Yes
Scenario 3: British Land is a PLC. Is it allowed to have foreign shareholders? No
Scenario 4: British Land is a PLC. What happens if all the shares are now owned by foreigners? You force them to sell. If they don't, you confiscate the assets.
Supplementary question 1: Is this residential only, or is it commercial and industrial? Residential and commercial and industrial.
Supplementary question 2: Would a South Korean firm build a battery factory if it wasn't allowed to own the land on which it built the factory? Would it? Dunno. I'd let it lease land from a British corporation, but not own it.
Supplementary question 3: existing treaty obligations I doubt we have actual treaty obligations (apart from embassies) : is there a Treaty of King Khaled City where we signed an agreement to let Saudi Arabian nationals buy tracts of land?
Supplementary question 4: are we planning on repudiating agreements where foreigners are allowed to invest in the UK (including land)? Yes. Give them, say, five or ten years to transfer the assets to a British holding corporation. Pay them in government scrip.
There y'go. It's not really complicated. You won't let yourself think like this because you think it's immoral. But the Government of the United Kingdom has responsibilities to the people of the United Kingdom and nobody else, and it needs to start acting like it. Selling off the land under our feet is wrong.
The state is pumping north of £20bn into the rental market every year, which is massively distorting the market and pushing up costs for working people.
Before messing around with restricting foreign ownership we need to kick away the various props that make housing more expensive than it needs to be.
This is spot on:
However... this is a non trivial problem to solve, because the transition would be extremely painful.
It's normally the job of the 'nasty party' to take the blame for fixing problems like that, but they wanted to be liked...
Don't be silly, the Nasty Party make those problems. Who do you think all those property moguls and BTL landlords vote for?
We have a housing crisis caused by problems that were created under New Labour and that the Tories failed to fix or made worse.
"All" these property moguls and BTL landlords aren't enough to swing a single seat, and in any case, they are not the cause of the problem.
For those who like this sort of thing, over on ConHome they are warbling on nostalgically about long lost military equipment Labour governments cancelled.
For those who like this sort of thing, over on ConHome they are warbling on nostalgically about long lost military equipment Labour governments cancelled.
For those who like this sort of thing, over on ConHome they are warbling on nostalgically about long lost military equipment Labour governments cancelled.
For those who like this sort of thing, over on ConHome they are warbling on nostalgically about long lost military equipment Labour governments cancelled.
For those who like this sort of thing, over on ConHome they are warbling on nostalgically about long lost military equipment Labour governments cancelled.
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
For those who like this sort of thing, over on ConHome they are warbling on nostalgically about long lost military equipment Labour governments cancelled.
Soooooo sixties I’m surprised it’s not wearing white plastic gogo boots
Well yes: backcomb, pale lipstick, foil dresses for the girls and cravats and tasches for the boys, or t'other way around depending on taste. But that's not important right now.
The TSR2 was the pinnacle of the British military industry before it all came crashing down. The industry was being consolidated to an inch of its life and it was a ginormous compromise as depicted by its name: Tactical, Strike and Reconnaissance, three contradictory missions. It flew brilliantly, was loved by all, and thanks to Labour Party politics and runmoured shenanigans with the US govt about RAF-custom F111s, it was cancelled when nearly complete. They burnt the plans in a carpark and grown men cried. The RAF custom F111s never arrived and Wilson told Johnson to do one when Vietnam kicked off.
(incidentally they are not nipples. They are shock cones. They help reduce the speed of the air entering the air intakes so when it hits the spinning engine blades it doesn't break them.)
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
“The person named Jan Marsalek has not been charged in the case.
Mr Marsalek is best known as the Austrian former chief operating officer of the company Wirecard, who became a wanted man in Germany after being suspected of having committed fraud. He is believed to have left Germany in 2020 and is reportedly now in Russia.
It is claimed Mr Roussev received tasking from abroad by Mr Marsalek.”
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
That's a "do bears **** in the woods?" question. On the other hand why would someone living in a comfortable dacha to the West of Vladivostok be supporting Trump?
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
That's a "do bears **** in the woods?" question. On the other hand why would someone living in a comfortable dacha to the West of Vladivostok be supporting Trump?
Still, would be nice if he answered the question (for a change).
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
That's a "do bears **** in the woods?" question. On the other hand why would someone living in a comfortable dacha to the West of Vladivostok be supporting Trump?
Still, would be nice if he answered the question (for a change).
Maybe he's in a non-commissioned officer rank and can't make management decisions without his supervisor's permission. I am not sure how a Soviet style hierarchy works.
Interesting US polling on attitudes to the conflict in Gaza.
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s) 67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas 63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3% Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs - Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants - Weak leadership at home and abroad
That's a "do bears **** in the woods?" question. On the other hand why would someone living in a comfortable dacha to the West of Vladivostok be supporting Trump?
Still, would be nice if he answered the question (for a change).
I'll produce a prediction map before the election like the one I did for 'Jobabob' in 2016 that turned out to be pretty accurate.
For those who like this sort of thing, over on ConHome they are warbling on nostalgically about long lost military equipment Labour governments cancelled.
Soooooo sixties I’m surprised it’s not wearing white plastic gogo boots
Well yes: backcomb, pale lipstick, foil dresses for the girls and cravats and tasches for the boys, or t'other way around depending on taste. But that's not important right now.
The TSR2 was the pinnacle of the British military industry before it all came crashing down. The industry was being consolidated to an inch of its life and it was a ginormous compromise as depicted by its name: Tactical, Strike and Reconnaissance, three contradictory missions. It flew brilliantly, was loved by all, and thanks to Labour Party politics and runmoured shenanigans with the US govt about RAF-custom F111s, it was cancelled when nearly complete. They burnt the plans in a carpark and grown men cried. The RAF custom F111s never arrived and Wilson told Johnson to do one when Vietnam kicked off.
(incidentally they are not nipples. They are shock cones. They help reduce the speed of the air entering the air intakes so when it hits the spinning engine blades it doesn't break them.)
It wasn't "nearly complete". That's balls.
By the time it was cancelled it was consuming a million quid per week (in the 60s!) and none of the mission systems or avionics had even been tested or integrated. And that's the hard part. It would have been at least another five years to get it into service.
They could have had 80% of the TSR.2 for 30% of the cost with RA-5.
E2A: Tornado did Tactical, Strike and Reconnaissance and was good at all three.
My take on Tomorrows I front page main headline is ignore it. We are going to get a lot of “is Labours poll lead soft” headlines to try and generate some excitement and grab headlines from here on in.
However, there in bottom right of same papers front page is a story rather revealing and serious.
FIRST TIME BUYERS PRICED OUT, AS WALL STREET LANDLORDS BUY UP NEW BUILDS.
This is a classic example of "sounds simple, but actually quite complex, and has loads of unintended knock on effects."
Start off with the easy bit: let's say that a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay... is he not allowed to own British property without having taken out British citizenship? What about having a valid visa? Or having indefinite right to remain?
And then you have the more complex questions: British Land is a PLC. Is it allowed to have foreign shareholders? (I.e. can a Swiss pension fund own shares in it?) What happens if all the shares are now owned by foreigners?
And is this residential only, or is it commercial and industrial? Would a South Korean firm build a battery factory if it wasn't allowed to own the land on which it built the factory?
And then there is the question of our existing treaty obligations: are we planning on repudiating agreements where foreigners are allowed to invest in the UK (including land)?
Let's go thru it
Scenario 1: a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay. Can he buy property without being a British national? No
Scenario 2: a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay. Can he buy property after becoming a British national? Yes
Scenario 3: British Land is a PLC. Is it allowed to have foreign shareholders? No
Scenario 4: British Land is a PLC. What happens if all the shares are now owned by foreigners? You force them to sell. If they don't, you confiscate the assets.
Supplementary question 1: Is this residential only, or is it commercial and industrial? Residential and commercial and industrial.
Supplementary question 2: Would a South Korean firm build a battery factory if it wasn't allowed to own the land on which it built the factory? Would it? Dunno. I'd let it lease land from a British corporation, but not own it.
Supplementary question 3: existing treaty obligations I doubt we have actual treaty obligations (apart from embassies) : is there a Treaty of King Khaled City where we signed an agreement to let Saudi Arabian nationals buy tracts of land?
Supplementary question 4: are we planning on repudiating agreements where foreigners are allowed to invest in the UK (including land)? Yes. Give them, say, five or ten years to transfer the assets to a British holding corporation. Pay them in government scrip.
There y'go. It's not really complicated. You won't let yourself think like this because you think it's immoral. But the Government of the United Kingdom has responsibilities to the people of the United Kingdom and nobody else, and it needs to start acting like it. Selling off the land under our feet is wrong.
Yes: the first responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom is to its citizens. And that does not mean dramatically restricting the number of people to whom they can sell their possessions.
What's your goal here? What are you trying to achieve? And is a draconian ban on all foreign land ownership the best way to achieve it?
Because what you have proposed would severely limit the willingness of foreign firms to build production facilities in the UK, while not restricting at all the ability of rich Singaporeans to buy up apartments in London, impacting the whole housing market by removing supply.
Take the first: a modern chip fabrication plan is going to cost at least $4bn. The land component of that is going to be $4m, maybe less. Now that's an extreme example, but no large manufacturer is going to sink capital into land that it doesn't own. (Why? Because in year 9 of a 10 year lease, the landlord will say "lovely chip fabrication plant you have there... be a shame if you had to dismantle it... the rent is now $500m a year.)
Now sure, that's an extreme example. But when firms commit to build stuff in the UK, they do so on multi-decade time-lines.
And it would affect British firms investment decisions too.
Say I had a startup British car company. Well, I'd be disincentivized to build production facilities in the UK because that would mean I couldn't sell my company to Ford or Tesla down the line. Better for me to build the actual factory in Italy or Sweden or Hungary or wherever.
On the other hand, foreigners would still be able to buy £20m apartments in Mayfair. Why? Because those are leasehold. Said Saudi or Singaporean doesn't own any land, he owns an apartment on a lease.
Your proposal would dramatically reduce the willingness of people - even British people - to build facilities in the UK, while still allowing massive capital to flow into unused apartments in London.
For those who like this sort of thing, over on ConHome they are warbling on nostalgically about long lost military equipment Labour governments cancelled.
Soooooo sixties I’m surprised it’s not wearing white plastic gogo boots
Well yes: backcomb, pale lipstick, foil dresses for the girls and cravats and tasches for the boys, or t'other way around depending on taste. But that's not important right now.
The TSR2 was the pinnacle of the British military industry before it all came crashing down. The industry was being consolidated to an inch of its life and it was a ginormous compromise as depicted by its name: Tactical, Strike and Reconnaissance, three contradictory missions. It flew brilliantly, was loved by all, and thanks to Labour Party politics and runmoured shenanigans with the US govt about RAF-custom F111s, it was cancelled when nearly complete. They burnt the plans in a carpark and grown men cried. The RAF custom F111s never arrived and Wilson told Johnson to do one when Vietnam kicked off.
(incidentally they are not nipples. They are shock cones. They help reduce the speed of the air entering the air intakes so when it hits the spinning engine blades it doesn't break them.)
It wasn't "nearly complete". That's balls.
By the time it was cancelled it was consuming a million quid per week (in the 60s!) and none of the mission systems or avionics had even been tested or integrated. And that's the hard part. It would have been at least another five years to get it into service.
They could have had 80% of the TSR.2 for 30% of the cost with RA-5.
E2A: Tornado did Tactical, Strike and Reconnaissance and was good at all three.
Quick check: ra5 being the vigilante? The plane that had to shit out its bombs? Hmm, it was never a star now was it?
Yes I know about the Tornado, (it and tsr2 have the same arse). But it was adequate at everything, excelled at little, was an international co-production and took years to get right, with even longer for the RAF interceptor version. But you know all this already.
Yes: the first responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom is to its citizens. And that does not mean dramatically restricting the number of people to whom they can sell their possessions.
There are 67million British people and an infinite number of British corporations. I think we'll manage.
Because what you have proposed would severely limit the willingness of foreign firms to build production facilities in the UK...
The UK market is big enough to attract suppliers. I'm not preventing them selling goods not building factories, I'm preventing them owning the land. Fifty-year leases should be enough
foreigners would still be able to buy £20m apartments in Mayfair. Why? Because those are leasehold. Said Saudi or Singaporean doesn't own any land, he owns an apartment on a lease.
Oh, I'm OK with them owning leasehold. I just don't want them to own freehold. And no sneaky lease extensions. Brits own the freehold of the buildings, they can "own" the leasehold of the apartments
Your proposal would dramatically reduce the willingness of people - even British people - to build facilities in the UK
I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's. We think that the travails of the past are unrepeatable, but they are repeated all the time. We remember history but repeat it anyway. We spent hundreds of years paying tithes to the French Barons, now we're paying rent to the Qataris. If kicking them out means we have more expensive cars and laptops, then the terms are acceptable. Some things - people, organs, your children, the land beneath your feet - you should not sell.
Yes: the first responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom is to its citizens. And that does not mean dramatically restricting the number of people to whom they can sell their possessions.
There are 67million British people and an infinite number of British corporations. I think we'll manage.
Because what you have proposed would severely limit the willingness of foreign firms to build production facilities in the UK...
The UK market is big enough to attract suppliers. I'm not preventing them selling goods not building factories, I'm preventing them owning the land. Fifty-year leases should be enough
foreigners would still be able to buy £20m apartments in Mayfair. Why? Because those are leasehold. Said Saudi or Singaporean doesn't own any land, he owns an apartment on a lease.
Oh, I'm OK with them owning leasehold. I just don't want them to own freehold. And no sneaky lease extensions. Brits own the freehold of the buildings, they can "own" the leasehold of the apartments
Your proposal would dramatically reduce the willingness of people - even British people - to build facilities in the UK
I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's. We think that the travails of the past are unrepeatable, but they are repeated all the time. We remember history but repeat it anyway. We spent hundreds of years paying tithes to the French Barons, now we're paying rent to the Qataris. If kicking them out means we have more expensive cars and laptops, then the terms are acceptable. Some things - people, organs, your children, the land beneath your feet - you should not sell.
I'm still struggling to understand your goal?
"I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's."
Why should I care who my landlord is?
How do I benefit - personally - from sending money to someone who happens to share a passport colour with me?
Because right now, you've come up with something where you admit there are very real concrete disadvantages, with a very airy fairy abstract concept of not being a serf based on what?
Yes: the first responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom is to its citizens. And that does not mean dramatically restricting the number of people to whom they can sell their possessions.
There are 67million British people and an infinite number of British corporations. I think we'll manage.
Because what you have proposed would severely limit the willingness of foreign firms to build production facilities in the UK...
The UK market is big enough to attract suppliers. I'm not preventing them selling goods not building factories, I'm preventing them owning the land. Fifty-year leases should be enough
foreigners would still be able to buy £20m apartments in Mayfair. Why? Because those are leasehold. Said Saudi or Singaporean doesn't own any land, he owns an apartment on a lease.
Oh, I'm OK with them owning leasehold. I just don't want them to own freehold. And no sneaky lease extensions. Brits own the freehold of the buildings, they can "own" the leasehold of the apartments
Your proposal would dramatically reduce the willingness of people - even British people - to build facilities in the UK
I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's. We think that the travails of the past are unrepeatable, but they are repeated all the time. We remember history but repeat it anyway. We spent hundreds of years paying tithes to the French Barons, now we're paying rent to the Qataris. If kicking them out means we have more expensive cars and laptops, then the terms are acceptable. Some things - people, organs, your children, the land beneath your feet - you should not sell.
What a load of bollocks.
Let's just pave over the south east - there's nothing particularly nice there anyway - with the 5 million extra homes we need. Faffing around with ownership is not going to change the fundamentals of housing supply/demand. We don't have enough housing for our population and it really is as simple as that.
Landlords are just as necessary as home owners and if I ever had to rent again I'd far rather have a random wall street corporation as one than a randomly selected "this is my pension" amateur. Some are lovely but a great deal are (to be topical) like Lee Johnson and couldn't give a flying fuck about keeping up their end of the landlor/tenant relationship.
Yes: the first responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom is to its citizens. And that does not mean dramatically restricting the number of people to whom they can sell their possessions.
There are 67million British people and an infinite number of British corporations. I think we'll manage.
Because what you have proposed would severely limit the willingness of foreign firms to build production facilities in the UK...
The UK market is big enough to attract suppliers. I'm not preventing them selling goods not building factories, I'm preventing them owning the land. Fifty-year leases should be enough
foreigners would still be able to buy £20m apartments in Mayfair. Why? Because those are leasehold. Said Saudi or Singaporean doesn't own any land, he owns an apartment on a lease.
Oh, I'm OK with them owning leasehold. I just don't want them to own freehold. And no sneaky lease extensions. Brits own the freehold of the buildings, they can "own" the leasehold of the apartments
Your proposal would dramatically reduce the willingness of people - even British people - to build facilities in the UK
I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's. We think that the travails of the past are unrepeatable, but they are repeated all the time. We remember history but repeat it anyway. We spent hundreds of years paying tithes to the French Barons, now we're paying rent to the Qataris. If kicking them out means we have more expensive cars and laptops, then the terms are acceptable. Some things - people, organs, your children, the land beneath your feet - you should not sell.
I'm still struggling to understand your goal?
"I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's."
Why should I care who my landlord is?
How do I benefit - personally - from sending money to someone who happens to share a passport colour with me?
Because right now, you've come up with something where you admit there are very real concrete disadvantages, with a very airy fairy abstract concept of not being a serf based on what?
The goal is to retain control over our own lives. Some things are not reducible to profit and loss. You would be happy in a well-appointed cell. I would not.
Yes: the first responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom is to its citizens. And that does not mean dramatically restricting the number of people to whom they can sell their possessions.
There are 67million British people and an infinite number of British corporations. I think we'll manage.
Because what you have proposed would severely limit the willingness of foreign firms to build production facilities in the UK...
The UK market is big enough to attract suppliers. I'm not preventing them selling goods not building factories, I'm preventing them owning the land. Fifty-year leases should be enough
foreigners would still be able to buy £20m apartments in Mayfair. Why? Because those are leasehold. Said Saudi or Singaporean doesn't own any land, he owns an apartment on a lease.
Oh, I'm OK with them owning leasehold. I just don't want them to own freehold. And no sneaky lease extensions. Brits own the freehold of the buildings, they can "own" the leasehold of the apartments
Your proposal would dramatically reduce the willingness of people - even British people - to build facilities in the UK
I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's. We think that the travails of the past are unrepeatable, but they are repeated all the time. We remember history but repeat it anyway. We spent hundreds of years paying tithes to the French Barons, now we're paying rent to the Qataris. If kicking them out means we have more expensive cars and laptops, then the terms are acceptable. Some things - people, organs, your children, the land beneath your feet - you should not sell.
Former Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson held private 'one to one' talks with Richard Tice, the leader of the Reform UK party, at a Holiday Inn hotel, at junction 28 of the M1 in South Normanton, Derbyshire on Sunday, 24 hours after he lost the Tory whip.
Mind you I stayed in a holiday in in Kelowna in Canada when my eldest was married and it was very good
They do the job, as do Holiday Inn. You *generally* get what you pay for; and what you pay is a heck of a lot less than you pay for the sort of tosserific high-class shitbag of a hotel that @TheScreamingEagles and @Leon appear to love.
We've had one bad experience in a Holiday Inn or Premier Inn; and that was in York when Mrs J was running a marathon and the room flooded the night before. But the (I think solitary) night staff member was very good and, if not sorted the mess out, made it so we could get a reasonable night's sleep.
Compared to B&B's, where we've had tremendous value and some hilariously poor experiences. Or high-class hotels, where you simply don't get what you pay for. Fine if you're on a trip of a lifetime, or on an expenses account, but sh*t if you're paying.
There's a reason why Premier Inn and Holiday Inn exist; and the people who poor scorn on them are just wannabe snobs, and can be ignored as such.
Yeah Premier Inn is the business. Comfy bed, nice breakfast, parking, what else do you need?
A good concierge service for starters.
What even is that? I've always seen these concierge desks next to check in, in fancy hotels I stay in for work, and never understood what they do.
Will get you tickets for shows/events that are sold out, ditto restaurant reservations.
They are the guys I ring before my romantic stays at a hotel.
Recently they helped ensure there were 144 roses, chocolates, etc in our room for our Valentine's Day long weekend.
Do they arrange the "company" for the "romantic stay"?
A top concierge will do ANYTHING
Once during the worst of my heroin habit I went to see a friend who was staying at the Dorchester. I was obviously strung out on gear but I desperately wanted another smoke before I went to see my mate in suite 45. But I didn’t have any tinfoil to smoke it off
So I went up to the concierge and said “I’m here to see Famous Person X in suite 45, but first I need some tin foil”
The concierge looked me up and down, and then said, “Certainly Sir”, then he nipped off and came back seconds later with a sheet of tin foil. Then, fight in front of him, I went to the gents and smoked my smack and came out and as I headed for the elevator the concierge smiled at me - now completely stoned and obviously so - and he said “it’s on the fourth floor, Sir”
Whether you think they’re intelligent or not is really irrelevant to their utility.
This is a breakthrough in practical application of AI!
Klarnas AI assistant, powered by @OpenAI, has in its first 4 weeks handled 2.3 m customer service chats and the data and insights are staggering:
- Handles 2/3 rd of our customer service enquires - On par with humans on customer satisfaction - Higher accuracy leading to a 25% reduction in repeat inquiries - Customer resolves their errands in 2 min vs 11 min - Live 24/7 in over 23 markets, communicating in over 35 languages
It performs the equivalent job of 700 full time agents... read more about this below.
So while we are happy about the results for our customers, our employees who have developed it and our shareholders, it raises the topic of the implications it will have for society.
In our case, customer service has been handled by on average 3000 full time agents employed by our customer service / outsourcing partners. Those partners employ 200 000 people, so in the short term this will only mean that those agents will work for other customers of those partners.
But in the longer term, as more companies adopt these technologies, we believe society needs to consider the impact. While it may be a positive impact for society as a whole, we need to consider the implications for the individuals affected.
We decided to share these statistics to raise the awareness and encourage a proactive approach to the topic of AI. For decision makers worldwide to recognise this is not just "in the future", this is happening right now. https://twitter.com/klarnaseb/status/1762508581679640814
Of course, any PB-ers who have been following and understanding my commentary on AI, since late 2020, will be entirely unsurprised by this development
Yes: the first responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom is to its citizens. And that does not mean dramatically restricting the number of people to whom they can sell their possessions.
There are 67million British people and an infinite number of British corporations. I think we'll manage.
Because what you have proposed would severely limit the willingness of foreign firms to build production facilities in the UK...
The UK market is big enough to attract suppliers. I'm not preventing them selling goods not building factories, I'm preventing them owning the land. Fifty-year leases should be enough
foreigners would still be able to buy £20m apartments in Mayfair. Why? Because those are leasehold. Said Saudi or Singaporean doesn't own any land, he owns an apartment on a lease.
Oh, I'm OK with them owning leasehold. I just don't want them to own freehold. And no sneaky lease extensions. Brits own the freehold of the buildings, they can "own" the leasehold of the apartments
Your proposal would dramatically reduce the willingness of people - even British people - to build facilities in the UK
I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's. We think that the travails of the past are unrepeatable, but they are repeated all the time. We remember history but repeat it anyway. We spent hundreds of years paying tithes to the French Barons, now we're paying rent to the Qataris. If kicking them out means we have more expensive cars and laptops, then the terms are acceptable. Some things - people, organs, your children, the land beneath your feet - you should not sell.
I'm still struggling to understand your goal?
"I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's."
Why should I care who my landlord is?
How do I benefit - personally - from sending money to someone who happens to share a passport colour with me?
Because right now, you've come up with something where you admit there are very real concrete disadvantages, with a very airy fairy abstract concept of not being a serf based on what?
The goal is to retain control over our own lives. Some things are not reducible to profit and loss. You would be happy in a well-appointed cell. I would not.
I still don't understand how a foreigner (or a foreign company) owning some land reduces my control of my life.
Or rather, I can understand how someone other than me owning land reduces my control. But it isn't clear how things are worse for me if it's a German or a Venezuelan that owns land.
In fact, I would argue I am in a significantly better position if it's a foreigner owning the land: a government needs to be conscious of the votes of landowners if they are citizens. By contrast it can impose whatever taxes it likes on foreign owners of land, as they have no votes.
Comments
I don’t know if that’s a spoiler at all?
Start off with the easy bit: let's say that a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay... is he not allowed to own British property without having taken out British citizenship? What about having a valid visa? Or having indefinite right to remain?
And then you have the more complex questions: British Land is a PLC. Is it allowed to have foreign shareholders? (I.e. can a Swiss pension fund own shares in it?) What happens if all the shares are now owned by foreigners?
And is this residential only, or is it commercial and industrial? Would a South Korean firm build a battery factory if it wasn't allowed to own the land on which it built the factory?
And then there is the question of our existing treaty obligations: are we planning on repudiating agreements where foreigners are allowed to invest in the UK (including land)?
Others might want to start at the beginning, with ELIZA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
(I found the program interesting, but was distressed when I saw a similar reaction to the secretary's from one of my relatives:
'Some of ELIZA's responses were so convincing that Weizenbaum and several others have anecdotes of users becoming emotionally attached to the program, occasionally forgetting that they were conversing with a computer.[3] Weizenbaum's own secretary reportedly asked Weizenbaum to leave the room so that she and ELIZA could have a real conversation. Weizenbaum was surprised by this, later writing: "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people."'
https://electionguessr.eu.pythonanywhere.com/
Before messing around with restricting foreign ownership we need to kick away the various props that make housing more expensive than it needs to be.
This is a breakthrough in practical application of AI!
Klarnas AI assistant, powered by @OpenAI, has in its first 4 weeks handled 2.3 m customer service chats and the data and insights are staggering:
- Handles 2/3 rd of our customer service enquires
- On par with humans on customer satisfaction
- Higher accuracy leading to a 25% reduction in repeat inquiries
- Customer resolves their errands in 2 min vs 11 min
- Live 24/7 in over 23 markets, communicating in over 35 languages
It performs the equivalent job of 700 full time agents... read more about this below.
So while we are happy about the results for our customers, our employees who have developed it and our shareholders, it raises the topic of the implications it will have for society.
In our case, customer service has been handled by on average 3000 full time agents employed by our customer service / outsourcing partners. Those partners employ 200 000 people, so in the short term this will only mean that those agents will work for other customers of those partners.
But in the longer term, as more companies adopt these technologies, we believe society needs to consider the impact. While it may be a positive impact for society as a whole, we need to consider the implications for the individuals affected.
We decided to share these statistics to raise the awareness and encourage a proactive approach to the topic of AI. For decision makers worldwide to recognise this is not just "in the future", this is happening right now.
https://twitter.com/klarnaseb/status/1762508581679640814
However... this is a non trivial problem to solve, because the transition would be extremely painful.
For example, here's one I told this morning: Early in Lincoln's first term, he had to fill thousands of positions. An office seeker came in to see him and demanded to know why Lincoln hadn't given the man a job, yet. The job seeker told Lincoln that Lincoln owed him a job since he had gotten Lincoln the presidency; Lincoln pointed at the pile of papers on his desk, and said: "And look what a pretty mess you got me into."
*A year or so ago, I ran into a young woman who, with no prompting on my part, told me she was a socialist. So I told her an old standard: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way round." (She didn't enjoy the joke. Unfortunately.)
- Treat all benefits as taxable income (currently disability benefits are not taxable).
- Replace the triple lock with a simple link to CPI.
- Roll ee NI into ICT (and thus extend it to all income).
- Remove special treatment of investment income.
- Introduce a wealth tax and use it to reduce employer's NI.
- Replace CT with a land tax, supplemented with a per person grant to councils from central taxation.
- Increase minimum wage (to reduce UC employment subsidies).
- Remove non-Dom status.
- Introduce a UK FATCA.- Force councils to build a (big) set quota of social housing every year + encourage right to buy.
- Abolish IHT but treat inheritances/gifts as income (allow to be taxed as if spread over 10 years).
- Abolish CGT but treat above inflation gains as income for ICT purposes.
- Most controversially perhaps, abolish ISAs, past and future.
It's a mixture of: reducing government spending on benefits, closing off tax exemptions, and moving taxation from income to wealth.
Labour, if you're watching, you're welcome.
No one would then sit on a property - unused, gathering dust - then. They would either sell it, or they would rent it out.
Both those things would increase the availability of housing.
Scenario 1: a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay. Can he buy property without being a British national?
No
Scenario 2: a German comes to the UK as a Google DeepMind engineer. After five years he decides he wants to stay. Can he buy property after becoming a British national?
Yes
Scenario 3: British Land is a PLC. Is it allowed to have foreign shareholders?
No
Scenario 4: British Land is a PLC. What happens if all the shares are now owned by foreigners?
You force them to sell. If they don't, you confiscate the assets.
Supplementary question 1: Is this residential only, or is it commercial and industrial?
Residential and commercial and industrial.
Supplementary question 2: Would a South Korean firm build a battery factory if it wasn't allowed to own the land on which it built the factory?
Would it? Dunno. I'd let it lease land from a British corporation, but not own it.
Supplementary question 3: existing treaty obligations
I doubt we have actual treaty obligations (apart from embassies) : is there a Treaty of King Khaled City where we signed an agreement to let Saudi Arabian nationals buy tracts of land?
Supplementary question 4: are we planning on repudiating agreements where foreigners are allowed to invest in the UK (including land)?
Yes. Give them, say, five or ten years to transfer the assets to a British holding corporation. Pay them in government scrip.
There y'go. It's not really complicated. You won't let yourself think like this because you think it's immoral. But the Government of the United Kingdom has responsibilities to the people of the United Kingdom and nobody else, and it needs to start acting like it. Selling off the land under our feet is wrong.
"All" these property moguls and BTL landlords aren't enough to swing a single seat, and in any case, they are not the cause of the problem.
https://conservativehome.com/2024/02/27/mark-francois-if-shapps-believes-war-is-on-the-way-the-ministry-of-defence-must-get-its-house-in-order/
Illustrated by a scene from a Gerry Anderson production.
Soooooo sixties I’m surprised it’s not wearing white plastic gogo boots
82% support Israel, 18% support Hamas (rising to over 30% for under 35s)
67% only support a ceasefire after all hostages are released by Hamas
63% support Israel continuing the offensive into southern Gaza
Also, net favourability:
Trump: +3%
Biden: -11%
13% of Democrats prefer Trump over Biden in a forced choice.
Joe Biden top achievements:
- Lowered the cost of prescription drugs
- Capped the price of insulin
And top failures:
- Created an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants
- Weak leadership at home and abroad
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/HHP_Feb2024_KeyResults.pdf
The TSR2 was the pinnacle of the British military industry before it all came crashing down. The industry was being consolidated to an inch of its life and it was a ginormous compromise as depicted by its name: Tactical, Strike and Reconnaissance, three contradictory missions. It flew brilliantly, was loved by all, and thanks to Labour Party politics and runmoured shenanigans with the US govt about RAF-custom F111s, it was cancelled when nearly complete. They burnt the plans in a carpark and grown men cried. The RAF custom F111s never arrived and Wilson told Johnson to do one when Vietnam kicked off.
(incidentally they are not nipples. They are shock cones. They help reduce the speed of the air entering the air intakes so when it hits the spinning engine blades it doesn't break them.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68419311
Last three paragraphs are quite the revelation:
“The person named Jan Marsalek has not been charged in the case.
Mr Marsalek is best known as the Austrian former chief operating officer of the company Wirecard, who became a wanted man in Germany after being suspected of having committed fraud. He is believed to have left Germany in 2020 and is reportedly now in Russia.
It is claimed Mr Roussev received tasking from abroad by Mr Marsalek.”
However Trump's first criminal trial starts next month and by November he may be in jail, so with Trump as his opponent Biden may still be re elected
By the time it was cancelled it was consuming a million quid per week (in the 60s!) and none of the mission systems or avionics had even been tested or integrated. And that's the hard part. It would have been at least another five years to get it into service.
They could have had 80% of the TSR.2 for 30% of the cost with RA-5.
E2A: Tornado did Tactical, Strike and Reconnaissance and was good at all three.
What's your goal here? What are you trying to achieve? And is a draconian ban on all foreign land ownership the best way to achieve it?
Because what you have proposed would severely limit the willingness of foreign firms to build production facilities in the UK, while not restricting at all the ability of rich Singaporeans to buy up apartments in London, impacting the whole housing market by removing supply.
Take the first: a modern chip fabrication plan is going to cost at least $4bn. The land component of that is going to be $4m, maybe less. Now that's an extreme example, but no large manufacturer is going to sink capital into land that it doesn't own. (Why? Because in year 9 of a 10 year lease, the landlord will say "lovely chip fabrication plant you have there... be a shame if you had to dismantle it... the rent is now $500m a year.)
Now sure, that's an extreme example. But when firms commit to build stuff in the UK, they do so on multi-decade time-lines.
And it would affect British firms investment decisions too.
Say I had a startup British car company. Well, I'd be disincentivized to build production facilities in the UK because that would mean I couldn't sell my company to Ford or Tesla down the line. Better for me to build the actual factory in Italy or Sweden or Hungary or wherever.
On the other hand, foreigners would still be able to buy £20m apartments in Mayfair. Why? Because those are leasehold. Said Saudi or Singaporean doesn't own any land, he owns an apartment on a lease.
Your proposal would dramatically reduce the willingness of people - even British people - to build facilities in the UK, while still allowing massive capital to flow into unused apartments in London.
Yes I know about the Tornado, (it and tsr2 have the same arse). But it was adequate at everything, excelled at little, was an international co-production and took years to get right, with even longer for the RAF interceptor version. But you know all this already.
Banning it seems a solution without a problem.
"I know that. But we end up being masters in our own land, not serfs in somebody else's."
Why should I care who my landlord is?
How do I benefit - personally - from sending money to someone who happens to share a passport colour with me?
Because right now, you've come up with something where you admit there are very real concrete disadvantages, with a very airy fairy abstract concept of not being a serf based on what?
Let's just pave over the south east - there's nothing particularly nice there anyway - with the 5 million extra homes we need. Faffing around with ownership is not going to change the fundamentals of housing supply/demand. We don't have enough housing for our population and it really is as simple as that.
Landlords are just as necessary as home owners and if I ever had to rent again I'd far rather have a random wall street corporation as one than a randomly selected "this is my pension" amateur. Some are lovely but a great deal are (to be topical) like Lee Johnson and couldn't give a flying fuck about keeping up their end of the landlor/tenant relationship.
Once during the worst of my heroin habit I went to see a friend who was staying at the Dorchester. I was obviously strung out on gear but I desperately wanted another smoke before I went to see my mate in suite 45. But I didn’t have any tinfoil to smoke it off
So I went up to the concierge and said “I’m here to see Famous Person X in suite 45, but first I need some tin foil”
The concierge looked me up and down, and then said, “Certainly Sir”, then he nipped off and came back seconds later with a sheet of tin foil. Then, fight in front of him, I went to the gents and smoked my smack and came out and as I headed for the elevator the concierge smiled at me - now completely stoned and obviously so - and he said “it’s on the fourth floor, Sir”
Or rather, I can understand how someone other than me owning land reduces my control. But it isn't clear how things are worse for me if it's a German or a Venezuelan that owns land.
In fact, I would argue I am in a significantly better position if it's a foreigner owning the land: a government needs to be conscious of the votes of landowners if they are citizens. By contrast it can impose whatever taxes it likes on foreign owners of land, as they have no votes.