The Osborne legacy remains popular – politicalbetting.com

System

The Osborne legacy remains popular – politicalbetting.com

NEW: The Labour MP Rosie Duffield has called on her party to scrap the two-child benefit cap, which she said amounts to “social cleansing” and is an “anti-feminist and unequal piece of legislation”https://t.co/9EFu7vOQ0U

Read the full story here

kyf_100

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

MisterBedfordshire

Test. Nb the thread not visible on vanilla pb homepage.

Edit - it is now.

Outage Outrage Over

HYUFD

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

MattW

Go forth.

Rosie Duffield isn't exactly "The labour Left".

I expect this is in the "priority when we can afford it" bucket.

I wonder how many years the "I can't find enough f*cking money because the f*cking Conservatives f*cked it all up for fourteen f*cking years" line will hold for convincingly?

TheScreamingEagles

Photo of the day.

Verstappen: "Yep, that's me. You're probably wondering how i ended up in this situation..."



https://x.com/elmejordelresto/status/1815033197232542109/photo/1

Pulpstar

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

The header is slightly incorrect, you still receive "child benefit" for unlimited children.

MisterBedfordshire

Todays Photo. Just taken

MisterBedfordshire

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

Brutally put, there is a case for generous tax breaks for having kids *and* keeping or even tightening the benefits cap.

MattW

The Chancellor is claiming a cost of £3bn afaics.

That's rather different to the £1.3bn number in other sources.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87rp0xr3ydo

Pulpstar

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit

How it works
You get Child Benefit if you’re responsible for bringing up a child who is:

under 16
under 20 if they stay in approved education or training
Only one person can get Child Benefit for a child.

There’s no limit to how many children you can claim for.

MattW

Perun:

North Korean Military Capabilities & Strategy - Nukes, Numbers & (bad) Economics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF5SSQA8VPU

DavidL

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

This policy was to stop buy to letters dominating the housing market and to give more chances to first time buyers with small deposits. It partially succeeded in that objective. If we want generation rent to buy we need to keep this policy.

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

This policy was to stop buy to letters dominating the housing market and to give more chances to first time buyers with small deposits. It partially succeeded in that objective. If we want generation rent to buy we need to keep this policy.

Or we could just build more houses, something Starmer will fail to do,

No_Offence_Alan

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

If you are serious about increasing the birth rate then builds lot of nice, affordable houses with gardens in nice parts of the country.

BartholomewRoberts

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

If a tenant is paying for a mortgage, it should be in their own name, not the landlords.

If a landlord has a mortgage, its a broken system that its the tenants paying for it from their salary and not the landlord paying for it from their own.

Rent should be at a rate less than mortgage repayments. It is in many countries without a broken housing system.

Pulpstar

Personally I'd be in favour of keeping the two-child benefit cap but raising child benefit for children subsequent to the first to the same level.
For the avoidance of doubt this would not affect me personally either way

BatteryCorrectHorse

I see JK Rowling has continued to hurt her own case by attacking David Tennant. That doesn't seem to have been wise.

MisterBedfordshire

Pulpstar said:

Personally I'd be in favour of keeping the two-child benefit cap but raising child benefit for children subsequent to the first to the same level.
For the avoidance of doubt this would not affect me personally either way

I think it should be abolished and replaced with tax allowances to the same value, but you have to earn enough to pay that tax in the first place to get it.

For benefits recipients the UC is more than generous enough.

StillWaters

MattW said:

Go forth.

Rosie Duffield isn't exactly "The labour Left".

I expect this is in the "priority when we can afford it" bucket.

I wonder how many years the "I can't find enough f*cking money because the f*cking Conservatives f*cked it all up for fourteen f*cking years" line will hold for convincingly?

Until they start giving baubles to their friends. They’ll get away with the 5.5% increase to teachers (I think). Not sure a high award to junior doctors will win as much favour

HYUFD

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

If you are serious about increasing the birth rate then builds lot of nice, affordable houses with gardens in nice parts of the country.

Part of the answer but tax breaks and support for mothers and childcare is also important as is support for marriage

Taz

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I see JK Rowling has continued to hurt her own case by attacking David Tennant. That doesn't seem to have been wise.

Sure 😂

MisterBedfordshire

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Taz

MattW said:

Go forth.

Rosie Duffield isn't exactly "The labour Left".

I expect this is in the "priority when we can afford it" bucket.

I wonder how many years the "I can't find enough f*cking money because the f*cking Conservatives f*cked it all up for fourteen f*cking years" line will hold for convincingly?

Probably this Parliament. The Tories were using the ‘no money left’ letter for 14 years after all.

kyf_100

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

This policy was to stop buy to letters dominating the housing market and to give more chances to first time buyers with small deposits. It partially succeeded in that objective. If we want generation rent to buy we need to keep this policy.

Not everyone can afford the 20k+ deposit you need to get on the housing ladder. Much more if you live in London and the SE. Which is, er, where the jobs are.

While I get the general idea was to make BTL less profitable, when you have a chronic supply shortage, landlords can more or less charge what they want. This is obvious from the post 2017 spike in rental prices, and again over the last couple of years with interest rates rising significantly.

The idea was to make landlords pay more, but in practice all that has happened is that they have passed their increased costs on to the tenant. Like I say, it's a tax on renters, not on landlords.

rcs1000

kyf_100 said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

This policy was to stop buy to letters dominating the housing market and to give more chances to first time buyers with small deposits. It partially succeeded in that objective. If we want generation rent to buy we need to keep this policy.

Not everyone can afford the 20k+ deposit you need to get on the housing ladder. Much more if you live in London and the SE. Which is, er, where the jobs are.

While I get the general idea was to make BTL less profitable, when you have a chronic supply shortage, landlords can more or less charge what they want. This is obvious from the post 2017 spike in rental prices, and again over the last couple of years with interest rates rising significantly.

The idea was to make landlords pay more, but in practice all that has happened is that they have passed their increased costs on to the tenant. Like I say, it's a tax on renters, not on landlords.

The failure of successive governments to understand simple economics principles is extraordinary.

Taz

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

Eabhal

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

That's the standard argument against any increased cost for landlords, direct or indirect.

I'm not so sure. I think that the rents are ultimately set by the overall demand and supply of housing in an area - not just that for rental properties. If increased costs for landlords mean that some rental properties aren't made available to renters, those properties don't just disappear.

There has been a significant change in housing tenure over the last 10 years, with a 28% increase in the number of households renting. Unless you think that for reasons of flexibility renting has become much more popular, this must be due to some change in housing supply.

When I was searching for my first flat, I was repeatedly matched by cash buyers seeing my city as an investment opportunity. In some cases, it was someone borrowing money from the bank to do the same. Much of the demand for rental properties comes from people like me who, despite having a significant deposit and a good job, simply could not compete with these people.

BartholomewRoberts

kyf_100 said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

This policy was to stop buy to letters dominating the housing market and to give more chances to first time buyers with small deposits. It partially succeeded in that objective. If we want generation rent to buy we need to keep this policy.

Not everyone can afford the 20k+ deposit you need to get on the housing ladder. Much more if you live in London and the SE. Which is, er, where the jobs are.

While I get the general idea was to make BTL less profitable, when you have a chronic supply shortage, landlords can more or less charge what they want. This is obvious from the post 2017 spike in rental prices, and again over the last couple of years with interest rates rising significantly.

The idea was to make landlords pay more, but in practice all that has happened is that they have passed their increased costs on to the tenant. Like I say, it's a tax on renters, not on landlords.

If the landlord has a mortgage they should be paying it from their own income. If the tenant can afford mortgage payments then they should be doing so in their own name, its a completely broken system that they're making the payments in someone else's name.

If you want to fix the system so that renters pay less there's plenty that needs fixing, starting with massively increasing supply.

Tinkering with taxes on those who are trying to get capital gains from their tenants salary isn't a priority.

MattW

Taz said:

MattW said:

Go forth.

Rosie Duffield isn't exactly "The labour Left".

I expect this is in the "priority when we can afford it" bucket.

I wonder how many years the "I can't find enough f*cking money because the f*cking Conservatives f*cked it all up for fourteen f*cking years" line will hold for convincingly?

Probably this Parliament. The Tories were using the ‘no money left’ letter for 14 years after all.

That's roughly where I'd put it, and there will need to have been noticeable improvements in aspects of society eg services and public realm by then for a second-term to be a shoo-in.

MattW

kyf_100 said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

This policy was to stop buy to letters dominating the housing market and to give more chances to first time buyers with small deposits. It partially succeeded in that objective. If we want generation rent to buy we need to keep this policy.

Not everyone can afford the 20k+ deposit you need to get on the housing ladder. Much more if you live in London and the SE. Which is, er, where the jobs are.

While I get the general idea was to make BTL less profitable, when you have a chronic supply shortage, landlords can more or less charge what they want. This is obvious from the post 2017 spike in rental prices, and again over the last couple of years with interest rates rising significantly.

The idea was to make landlords pay more, but in practice all that has happened is that they have passed their increased costs on to the tenant. Like I say, it's a tax on renters, not on landlords.

My impression - beside it being an obviously loopy policy (taxing money already spent pm business expenses as income ffs) - it was also about "Labour will do a tax raid on this anyway so I may as well get the cash now".

Tweedledee

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Wot

TheScreamingEagles

Tweedledee said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Wot

https://x.com/seng84/status/1814931979558682750/photo/1

MisterBedfordshire

Taz said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

Appears it was said (written) a while back but is getting an airing in a twitter pile in after the speccie editor said what a good chap he was.

No_Offence_Alan

Pulpstar said:

Personally I'd be in favour of keeping the two-child benefit cap but raising child benefit for children subsequent to the first to the same level.
For the avoidance of doubt this would not affect me personally either way

But having a higher rate for the first child makes sense. The main cost of having children is loss of income - and you can only lose your income once.

MisterBedfordshire

No_Offence_Alan said:

Pulpstar said:

Personally I'd be in favour of keeping the two-child benefit cap but raising child benefit for children subsequent to the first to the same level.
For the avoidance of doubt this would not affect me personally either way

But having a higher rate for the first child makes sense. The main cost of having children is loss of income - and you can only lose your income once.

Also, aside from food costs, a lot of expensive things you buy like cots, pushchairs etc get recycled onto no.2 later.

Jim_Miller

This New Yorker cartoon showing a young couple in a small apartment may summarize much of the discussion so far:
https://condenaststore.com/featured/a-wife-talks-to-her-husband-barbara-smaller.html

Omnium

I really wish Biden would get on with quitting. I never win on US political betting (I do somewhat on the UK, and oddly France too). Anyway, this time I'm determined to win - all green! But the attractions of placing many of my worldly goods against the old fool are pretty tempting.

Scott_xP

@lucyprebblish

What if Biden keeps forgetting he’s agreed to step down

Carnyx

MisterBedfordshire said:

Todays Photo. Just taken

Nice. Dawlish Warren, Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton from near Teignmouth?

MisterBedfordshire

Carnyx said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Todays Photo. Just taken

Nice. Dawlish Warren, Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton from near Teignmouth?

Spot on. Made it to Plymouth now.

Luckyguy1983

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tweedledee said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Wot

https://x.com/seng84/status/1814931979558682750/photo/1

Urghhhh.

pigeon

Those polling numbers re: the two child limit show us how sticky the old trope of the feckless mother pumping out kids to live off the benefits remains, and also why the Government feels on such solid ground digging its heels in. The election result may show that the foundations of the huge Labour majority are very shallow, but shoring them up relies on keeping the Conservative and Reform votes down, not shoring up the left flank where voter defection options are far more limited (splitting the Labour vote risks simply letting the right back in under most circumstances, with the Greens in second place in only about 40 seats IIRC.)

Essentially they're banking on getting re-elected through economic revival and the repair of public services (chiefly the knackered old NHS) going hand in hand. Social Security claimants (except, of course, pensioners) are at the back of the queue and will get scraps from the table only if there are any to spare. In this sense, at least, we're dealing with continuity Conservatism: if you can't afford to live then you're not working hard enough.

Chris

Omnium said:

I really wish Biden would get on with quitting. I never win on US political betting (I do somewhat on the UK, and oddly France too). Anyway, this time I'm determined to win - all green! But the attractions of placing many of my worldly goods against the old fool are pretty tempting.

It's an interesting situation, isn't it?

The consensus of sensible commentators is that he can't beat Trump. Whether someone else can beat Trump may be open to question, but if one accepts the consensus view it must be worth trying,

But Biden himself is evidently suffering from cognitive impairment and those around him seem to be pushing him to carry on.

He can't realistically be forced to stand down. Can he practically defy opinion to continue?

Whatever the answer is, one has to feel sorry for him.

Omnium

pigeon said:

Those polling numbers re: the two child limit show us how sticky the old trope of the feckless mother pumping out kids to live off the benefits remains, and also why the Government feels on such solid ground digging its heels in. The election result may show that the foundations of the huge Labour majority are very shallow, but shoring them up relies on keeping the Conservative and Reform votes down, not shoring up the left flank where voter defection options are far more limited (splitting the Labour vote risks simply letting the right back in under most circumstances, with the Greens in second place in only about 40 seats IIRC.)

Essentially they're banking on getting re-elected through economic revival and the repair of public services (chiefly the knackered old NHS) going hand in hand. Social Security claimants (except, of course, pensioners) are at the back of the queue and will get scraps from the table only if there are any to spare. In this sense, at least, we're dealing with continuity Conservatism: if you can't afford to live then you're not working hard enough.

The trope is true though. A third child got you a house. So you go from a potentially productive person to a dependent woman with several children just because the system incentivises her to act in that way. (My step-sister did exactly this, and was happy to explain it)

Tax and benefits can produce hugely poor motivations.

Stuartinromford

MisterBedfordshire said:

Taz said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

Appears it was said (written) a while back but is getting an airing in a twitter pile in after the speccie editor said what a good chap he was.

Pretty ancient- I think he wrote it in 2012.

Does he really think that? Hard to tell, when his whole shtick is "saying outrageous stuff because can".

Shows the limits of both cancel culture and editorial standards at the house magazine of the thinking right.

TheScreamingEagles

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tweedledee said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Wot

https://x.com/seng84/status/1814931979558682750/photo/1

Urghhhh.

To protect PB from legal/police actions, links to Spectator articles are no longer permitted.

Thems the breaks if you write articles like that.

Omnium

Chris said:

Omnium said:

I really wish Biden would get on with quitting. I never win on US political betting (I do somewhat on the UK, and oddly France too). Anyway, this time I'm determined to win - all green! But the attractions of placing many of my worldly goods against the old fool are pretty tempting.

It's an interesting situation, isn't it?

The consensus of sensible commentators is that he can't beat Trump. Whether someone else can beat Trump may be open to question, but if one accepts the consensus view it must be worth trying,

But Biden himself is evidently suffering from cognitive impairment and those around him seem to be pushing him to carry on.

He can't realistically be forced to stand down. Can he practically defy opinion to continue?

Whatever the answer is, one has to feel sorry for him.

It's a crazy situation. I think that at some point the US will have to trim the powers of the President, precisely because of this sort of situation. Biden's not mad, and not going to declare a war - but supposing he was? The US has been perhaps lucky, but perhaps electorally wise in choosing good men as their Presidents. (Issues with Trump notwithstanding)

TheScreamingEagles

Stuartinromford said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Taz said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

Appears it was said (written) a while back but is getting an airing in a twitter pile in after the speccie editor said what a good chap he was.

Pretty ancient- I think he wrote it in 2012.

Does he really think that? Hard to tell, when his whole shtick is "saying outrageous stuff because can".

Shows the limits of both cancel culture and editorial standards at the house magazine of the thinking right.

It is a miracle he has a job at The Spectator lest we forget Rod Liddle has a criminal record for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend.

MisterBedfordshire

I have a daughter in year 10 sat on the train with me (the oldest you can be at the end of year 10 is 15).

What the hell were they thinking (a) publishing that in the first place (b) seemingly still having it up online?

I'm not easily shockable but WTF. A mouthful of my complimentary GWR sparkling water ended up on the table.

That will teach me not to look at what is trending on Twix when train-bored. I feel soiled.

TimS

Omnium said:

pigeon said:

Those polling numbers re: the two child limit show us how sticky the old trope of the feckless mother pumping out kids to live off the benefits remains, and also why the Government feels on such solid ground digging its heels in. The election result may show that the foundations of the huge Labour majority are very shallow, but shoring them up relies on keeping the Conservative and Reform votes down, not shoring up the left flank where voter defection options are far more limited (splitting the Labour vote risks simply letting the right back in under most circumstances, with the Greens in second place in only about 40 seats IIRC.)

Essentially they're banking on getting re-elected through economic revival and the repair of public services (chiefly the knackered old NHS) going hand in hand. Social Security claimants (except, of course, pensioners) are at the back of the queue and will get scraps from the table only if there are any to spare. In this sense, at least, we're dealing with continuity Conservatism: if you can't afford to live then you're not working hard enough.

The trope is true though. A third child got you a house. So you go from a potentially productive person to a dependent woman with several children just because the system incentivises her to act in that way. (My step-sister did exactly this, and was happy to explain it)

Tax and benefits can produce hugely poor motivations.

Natal policy is going to be a newly important dividing line over the next few years. Like house building vs NIMBYism it doesn’t naturally fit left-right readings.

On one side, the nationalist right, fearful of immigration and keen to encourage births in the native population. Together with them the socialist left, and some of the traditionalist and religious right who were never comfortable with mothers working.

On the other, the Thatcherites sceptical of benefits spongers, the fiscal hawks wanting to keep a tight austerity grip on spending, and the eco-catastrophists obsessed with overpopulation.

Stuartinromford

MisterBedfordshire said:

I have a daughter in year 10 sat on the train with me (the you can be at the end of year 10 is 15.

What the hell were they thinking (a) publishing that in the first place (b) seemingly still having it up online?

I'm not easily shockable but WTF?

And that is why they published it, and continue to publish nonsense like that.

Because you can only know WTF by reading the damn thing.

Nunu5

Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.V.) calls on Biden to quit the presidential race.
https://x.com/NewsWire_US/status/1815016914382409829

SeaShantyIrish2

Scott_xP said:

@lucyprebblish

What if Biden keeps forgetting he’s agreed to step down

Perhaps possible, that Joe Biden will not withdraw from 2024 POTUS race, until AFTER Bibi Netanyahu addresses joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

MisterBedfordshire

J

Stuartinromford said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I have a daughter in year 10 sat on the train with me (the you can be at the end of year 10 is 15.

What the hell were they thinking (a) publishing that in the first place (b) seemingly still having it up online?

I'm not easily shockable but WTF?

And that is why they published it, and continue to publish nonsense like that.

Because you can only know WTF by reading the damn thing.

That must be on the boundaries of legality?

TimS

MisterBedfordshire said:

I have a daughter in year 10 sat on the train with me (the oldest you can be at the end of year 10 is 15).

What the hell were they thinking (a) publishing that in the first place (b) seemingly still having it up online?

I'm not easily shockable but WTF?

It’s part of the Spectator brand, to publish deliberately shocking personal musings by middle aged adolescent males. A particular genre (recall the recent article about the author being turned on by a female academic and visiting a Cambridge brothel to relieve himself).

Another Spectator style note, judging by Fraser Nelson’s original tweet, is the use of “tho” instead of “though”. No idea why, but it seems to be a thing.

Omnium

TimS said:

Omnium said:

pigeon said:

Those polling numbers re: the two child limit show us how sticky the old trope of the feckless mother pumping out kids to live off the benefits remains, and also why the Government feels on such solid ground digging its heels in. The election result may show that the foundations of the huge Labour majority are very shallow, but shoring them up relies on keeping the Conservative and Reform votes down, not shoring up the left flank where voter defection options are far more limited (splitting the Labour vote risks simply letting the right back in under most circumstances, with the Greens in second place in only about 40 seats IIRC.)

Essentially they're banking on getting re-elected through economic revival and the repair of public services (chiefly the knackered old NHS) going hand in hand. Social Security claimants (except, of course, pensioners) are at the back of the queue and will get scraps from the table only if there are any to spare. In this sense, at least, we're dealing with continuity Conservatism: if you can't afford to live then you're not working hard enough.

The trope is true though. A third child got you a house. So you go from a potentially productive person to a dependent woman with several children just because the system incentivises her to act in that way. (My step-sister did exactly this, and was happy to explain it)

Tax and benefits can produce hugely poor motivations.

Natal policy is going to be a newly important dividing line over the next few years. Like house building vs NIMBYism it doesn’t naturally fit left-right readings.

On one side, the nationalist right, fearful of immigration and keen to encourage births in the native population. Together with them the socialist left, and some of the traditionalist and religious right who were never comfortable with mothers working.

On the other, the Thatcherites sceptical of benefits spongers, the fiscal hawks wanting to keep a tight austerity grip on spending, and the eco-catastrophists obsessed with overpopulation.

Social engineering of any sort is pretty awful in my view. I watched the film 'How the West was Won' last night. Not a great film, and some hideous stereotypes - although actually quite funny now. The theme though of get out there and get on with it doesn't strike me as too far wrong though.

Benpointer

Taz said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

That's a personal bugbear of mine too - just add a bloody link if you're going to post some gossip or news.

Luckyguy1983

Benpointer said:

Taz said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

That's a personal bugbear of mine too - just add a bloody link if you're going to post some gossip or news.

It's very annoying.

SandyRentool

I against the two child benefit policy.

I would reduce it to zero.

Chris

Benpointer said:

Taz said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

That's a personal bugbear of mine too - just add a bloody link if you're going to post some gossip or news.

I think in posting that 'Mister Bedfordshire' may have unthinkingly revealed something about himself.

Benpointer

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Scott_xP said:

@lucyprebblish

What if Biden keeps forgetting he’s agreed to step down

Perhaps possible, that Joe Biden will not withdraw from 2024 POTUS race, until AFTER Bibi Netanyahu addresses joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

Biden's exit is becoming the fusion power generation of politics - always just around the corner.

Andy_JS

I stopped listening to the cricket for about an hour and the Windies have collapsed.

MattW

Stuartinromford said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Taz said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

Appears it was said (written) a while back but is getting an airing in a twitter pile in after the speccie editor said what a good chap he was.

Pretty ancient- I think he wrote it in 2012.

Does he really think that? Hard to tell, when his whole shtick is "saying outrageous stuff because can".

Shows the limits of both cancel culture and editorial standards at the house magazine of the thinking right.

https://archive.ph/uZ2XL

JosiasJessop

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

A Spectator drinks party must make Mos Eisley's cantina look respectable.

Benpointer

Andy_JS said:

I stopped listening to the cricket for about an hour and the Windies have collapsed.

You switched off... and so did the WIndies.

MisterBedfordshire

J

Chris said:

Benpointer said:

Taz said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

That's a personal bugbear of mine too - just add a bloody link if you're going to post some gossip or news.

I think in posting that 'Mister Bedfordshire' may have unthinkingly revealed something about himself.

Thanks. I'm still feeling a bit sick as it happens.

Also I didn't post it, just posted words to the effect that I wasn't very impressed with it (to put it mildly).

MattW

MattW said:

Stuartinromford said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Taz said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Fascinating. Hint at something without saying it outright, a worthwhile input.

Appears it was said (written) a while back but is getting an airing in a twitter pile in after the speccie editor said what a good chap he was.

Pretty ancient- I think he wrote it in 2012.

Does he really think that? Hard to tell, when his whole shtick is "saying outrageous stuff because can".

Shows the limits of both cancel culture and editorial standards at the house magazine of the thinking right.

https://archive.ph/uZ2XL

Update: Just picked up @TSE 's comment - is a link to an archive copy not allowed?

Or was that a dramatic flourish - @Leon will be bereft if he is banned from linking his hero?

TheScreamingEagles

The stewards are wankers.

No further action over the Verstappen and Hamilton collision #F1 #HungarianGP

Verstappen claimed Hamilton moved under braking.

Stewards say video evidence and telemetry showed Hamilton followed his normal racing line, so didn't move under braking "although it is our determination that the driver of Car 44 could have done more to avoid the collision" #F1

https://x.com/ChrisMedlandF1/status/1815072610260300131

rcs1000

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

If you are serious about increasing the birth rate then builds lot of nice, affordable houses with gardens in nice parts of the country.

Actually, just build lots of houses in places where there's demand, and the market will sort it out.

Or, to put it another way, don't let great be the enemy of good. (I'm sorry, because there's no space for gardens, there's no point in building homes here.)

rcs1000

Eabhal said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

That's the standard argument against any increased cost for landlords, direct or indirect.

I'm not so sure. I think that the rents are ultimately set by the overall demand and supply of housing in an area - not just that for rental properties. If increased costs for landlords mean that some rental properties aren't made available to renters, those properties don't just disappear.

There has been a significant change in housing tenure over the last 10 years, with a 28% increase in the number of households renting. Unless you think that for reasons of flexibility renting has become much more popular, this must be due to some change in housing supply.

When I was searching for my first flat, I was repeatedly matched by cash buyers seeing my city as an investment opportunity. In some cases, it was someone borrowing money from the bank to do the same. Much of the demand for rental properties comes from people like me who, despite having a significant deposit and a good job, simply could not compete with these people.

While that's true, it also makes building new homes less profitable because there are fewer potential purchasers.

Sean_F

Yes, the cap should be abolished (another issue I’ve changed my mind over). Fiscal policy needs to shift in favour of people of working age.

Malmesbury

MisterBedfordshire said:

I have a daughter in year 10 sat on the train with me (the oldest you can be at the end of year 10 is 15).

What the hell were they thinking (a) publishing that in the first place (b) seemingly still having it up online?

I'm not easily shockable but WTF. A mouthful of my complimentary GWR sparkling water ended up on the table.

That will teach me not to look at what is trending on Twix when train-bored. I feel soiled.

Don’t look at Twatter. Full stop. Your life will be better. Full Stop.

Omnium

rcs1000 said:

Eabhal said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

That's the standard argument against any increased cost for landlords, direct or indirect.

I'm not so sure. I think that the rents are ultimately set by the overall demand and supply of housing in an area - not just that for rental properties. If increased costs for landlords mean that some rental properties aren't made available to renters, those properties don't just disappear.

There has been a significant change in housing tenure over the last 10 years, with a 28% increase in the number of households renting. Unless you think that for reasons of flexibility renting has become much more popular, this must be due to some change in housing supply.

When I was searching for my first flat, I was repeatedly matched by cash buyers seeing my city as an investment opportunity. In some cases, it was someone borrowing money from the bank to do the same. Much of the demand for rental properties comes from people like me who, despite having a significant deposit and a good job, simply could not compete with these people.

While that's true, it also makes building new homes less profitable because there are fewer potential purchasers.

The building of new homes would undoubtedly be more profitable if the builders actually worked on building the houses. So far as I can see ALL construction projects of any description in the UK have workers actually on site and working about 10% of the time. Even when they're working it's a man with a shovel whilst two colleagues comment on his style.

SeaShantyIrish2

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 2024 Campaign - Current State-by-State Ballot Status as of July 21

> Certified to be on general election ballot = 14 states (184 total Electoral Votes)
Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawai'i, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah

> Petitions awaiting certification to qualify for ballot = 17 states (218 EVs)
Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington.

> Automatic write-in (write-in votes for RFK Jr will be officially counted and reported) = 3 states (15 EVs)
Alabama, Vermont, Wyoming

source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr._2024_presidential_campaign

SSI - When Kennedy the Younger announced he was running as an Independent for President, yours truly said that I though he'd end up gaining ballot access in all 50 states plus District of Columbia.

So far he's achieved that in 34 states (417 EVs out of 538) leaving 16 states plus DC left, including Arizona, Maine, Virginia, Wisconsin.

RFK Jr may not get the whole hog, but feel sure he'll make the ballot one way or another just about everywhere with only a handful (or perhaps two) of exceptions.

SMukesh

FPT:

*Betting post*

England are currently 248/3.

OVER/UNDER (435.5)10/11 on Ladbrokes

I feel that England have to play extraordinary to add close to 200 runs to reach 436.

Apologies if am wrong.`

It was quite close but it paid out in the end.
Hope some of you managed to get a bet on.

nico679

Latest Michigan poll has Biden down by 7 to Trump . 42% v 49 % .

Those around Biden are clearly part of the problem , telling him what he wants to hear .

Apparently Biden feels betrayed and angry , he needs to stop whining .

Sean_F

rcs1000 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

If you are serious about increasing the birth rate then builds lot of nice, affordable houses with gardens in nice parts of the country.

Actually, just build lots of houses in places where there's demand, and the market will sort it out.

Or, to put it another way, don't let great be the enemy of good. (I'm sorry, because there's no space for gardens, there's no point in building homes here.)

Big house builders hoard land with planning permission. Why not tax unused land heavily, while lowering taxes on the sale of new builds?

Malmesbury

rcs1000 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

If you are serious about increasing the birth rate then builds lot of nice, affordable houses with gardens in nice parts of the country.

Actually, just build lots of houses in places where there's demand, and the market will sort it out.

Or, to put it another way, don't let great be the enemy of good. (I'm sorry, because there's no space for gardens, there's no point in building homes here.)

How about this for a “grow the population” policy?

On the birth of your third child, you get a 5 bed house in a nice new garden city, that is in one of the areas that the country is trying to “level up”

A free house.

It’s not 640 acres of Norte Mexico, but..

WillG

Sean_F said:

Yes, the cap should be abolished (another issue I’ve changed my mind over). Fiscal policy needs to shift in favour of people of working age.

The principle is good, but not in terms of benefits. You want to incentivize people to have children in the right circumstances. I.e. two parents that are married and where at least one is working.

SeaShantyIrish2

TimS said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I have a daughter in year 10 sat on the train with me (the oldest you can be at the end of year 10 is 15).

What the hell were they thinking (a) publishing that in the first place (b) seemingly still having it up online?

I'm not easily shockable but WTF?

It’s part of the Spectator brand, to publish deliberately shocking personal musings by middle aged adolescent males. A particular genre (recall the recent article about the author being turned on by a female academic and visiting a Cambridge brothel to relieve himself).

Another Spectator style note, judging by Fraser Nelson’s original tweet, is the use of “tho” instead of “though”. No idea why, but it seems to be a thing.

Perhap the "Spectator" ought to rename/rebrand itself as the "Voyeur".

EDIT - Or maybe better yet, the "Wanker"?

MattW

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

TimS said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I have a daughter in year 10 sat on the train with me (the oldest you can be at the end of year 10 is 15).

What the hell were they thinking (a) publishing that in the first place (b) seemingly still having it up online?

I'm not easily shockable but WTF?

It’s part of the Spectator brand, to publish deliberately shocking personal musings by middle aged adolescent males. A particular genre (recall the recent article about the author being turned on by a female academic and visiting a Cambridge brothel to relieve himself).

Another Spectator style note, judging by Fraser Nelson’s original tweet, is the use of “tho” instead of “though”. No idea why, but it seems to be a thing.

Perhap the "Spectator" ought to rename/rebrand itself as the "Voyeur".

I think they are really quite damaging their brand.

Malmesbury

JosiasJessop said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

A Spectator drinks party must make Mos Eisley's cantina look respectable.

Greedo thought Hans Solo was going to take his spot as Gardening correspondent…..

The old Low Life column, years back, I was convinced I used to drink in that pub.

Tim_in_Ruislip

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make it to the Speccie's summer bash...

Anyway, a decent enough write-up by the Irish Times;

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk/2024/07/16/the-spectators-summer-bash-is-the-power-party-of-westminster-and-its-fuel-is-champagne/

Andy_JS

England win by 241 runs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/cx0092z3n9xt#LiveReporting

rcs1000

MisterBedfordshire said:

J

Stuartinromford said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I have a daughter in year 10 sat on the train with me (the you can be at the end of year 10 is 15.

What the hell were they thinking (a) publishing that in the first place (b) seemingly still having it up online?

I'm not easily shockable but WTF?

And that is why they published it, and continue to publish nonsense like that.

Because you can only know WTF by reading the damn thing.

That must be on the boundaries of legality?

Why?

(And I highly advise you not to read Lolita.)

Omnium

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

If you are serious about increasing the birth rate then builds lot of nice, affordable houses with gardens in nice parts of the country.

Actually, just build lots of houses in places where there's demand, and the market will sort it out.

Or, to put it another way, don't let great be the enemy of good. (I'm sorry, because there's no space for gardens, there's no point in building homes here.)

How about this for a “grow the population” policy?

On the birth of your third child, you get a 5 bed house in a nice new garden city, that is in one of the areas that the country is trying to “level up”

A free house.

It’s not 640 acres of Norte Mexico, but..

Yes, that's pretty much the current scheme.

Work all your life to make a nice home for potential children - you're screwed. Just have the children - no worries.

BlancheLivermore

Everybody should drive like I do

I never unnecessarily use my brake. I drive at a sensible enough speed that I normally never need to brake; I use my gears to regulate my speed

When I have clear road in front I never break the speed limit (50 mph for vans on single carriage roads; why it's 60 for these massive, weighty, people-carrying SUVs wtfk), but I corner considerably quicker than the braking morons behind me. I leave them behind at the bends, but they obviously catch me on the straights

When I have a car in front going slower, I just leave a decent gap so I don't have to brake when they inevitably and idiotically do

I like to try to make the braking morons behind think that my brake lights are broken

Just before I returned my last leased car (a Skoda Fabia), it had to go into the the dealer's for a well overdue service. I got a call from them while it was being serviced; they wanted to know who had replaced the brakes. They could see I had original Skoda brake pads and discs, but no record of them being changed

It took quite a while to convince them that I hadn't had them replaced, even though I'd have to have been an idiot to have had it done elsewhere with full service lease contract

They told me that the brakes looked like they'd done twenty thousand miles, but the car had done eighty thousand

Drive like me

squareroot2

England win Bashir 5fer

Andy_JS

Sean_F said:

Yes, the cap should be abolished (another issue I’ve changed my mind over). Fiscal policy needs to shift in favour of people of working age.

Why is no-one talking about whether or not there is actually any money available for policies like this? I thought we were up to our necks in debt.

Malmesbury

Omnium said:

rcs1000 said:

Eabhal said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

That's the standard argument against any increased cost for landlords, direct or indirect.

I'm not so sure. I think that the rents are ultimately set by the overall demand and supply of housing in an area - not just that for rental properties. If increased costs for landlords mean that some rental properties aren't made available to renters, those properties don't just disappear.

There has been a significant change in housing tenure over the last 10 years, with a 28% increase in the number of households renting. Unless you think that for reasons of flexibility renting has become much more popular, this must be due to some change in housing supply.

When I was searching for my first flat, I was repeatedly matched by cash buyers seeing my city as an investment opportunity. In some cases, it was someone borrowing money from the bank to do the same. Much of the demand for rental properties comes from people like me who, despite having a significant deposit and a good job, simply could not compete with these people.

While that's true, it also makes building new homes less profitable because there are fewer potential purchasers.

The building of new homes would undoubtedly be more profitable if the builders actually worked on building the houses. So far as I can see ALL construction projects of any description in the UK have workers actually on site and working about 10% of the time. Even when they're working it's a man with a shovel whilst two colleagues comment on his style.

Just pre COVID, I was passing Chiswick Business park one morning.

A major trench was being dug in the main road, tons of cones, diggers and even a portacabin.

The hole was being contemplated by literally 8 blokes in hi-zi, all armed with the largest size of disposable coffee cup from StarFucks.

One young lad, the runt of the litter, was in the hole, digging by hand. While they made joking comments at his expense.

Leon

MattW said:

Go forth.

Rosie Duffield isn't exactly "The labour Left".

I expect this is in the "priority when we can afford it" bucket.

I wonder how many years the "I can't find enough f*cking money because the f*cking Conservatives f*cked it all up for fourteen f*cking years" line will hold for convincingly?

Labour are going to be catastrophically unpopular within 2 years

Malmesbury

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

If you are serious about increasing the birth rate then builds lot of nice, affordable houses with gardens in nice parts of the country.

Actually, just build lots of houses in places where there's demand, and the market will sort it out.

Or, to put it another way, don't let great be the enemy of good. (I'm sorry, because there's no space for gardens, there's no point in building homes here.)

How about this for a “grow the population” policy?

On the birth of your third child, you get a 5 bed house in a nice new garden city, that is in one of the areas that the country is trying to “level up”

A free house.

It’s not 640 acres of Norte Mexico, but..

Yes, that's pretty much the current scheme.

Work all your life to make a nice home for potential children - you're screwed. Just have the children - no worries.

Thus my suggestion.

Lean into the way things roll, rather than fight it.

Much like my idea to make all the technical colleges into unis and grant degrees. So your plumber will have a PhD. Break down the trade vs white collar divide - make every plumber learn some Keats and every Art Historian should learn to weld.

Or the triumph of battery storage. It may not be the best solution, but it’s the one that is happening while tickets have another 20 year enquiry about picking their noses or something.

Leon

Today’s photo



A rare example of very old being slightly enhanced - to my mind - by very new

Benpointer

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

There is a Conservative case for removing the cap, eg we are now below replacement level in terms of children per woman which is set at 2.1 and Meloni as Italian PM has provided funds to mothers who have more children to increase the Italian birthrate as a right of centre leader. Osborne though was an economic liberal and fiscal conservative more than a traditional pro family Conservative.

I doubt it makes much difference in Scotland if Labour retain it, Yougov has 59% of Scots backing the 2 child benefit cap

If you are serious about increasing the birth rate then builds lot of nice, affordable houses with gardens in nice parts of the country.

Actually, just build lots of houses in places where there's demand, and the market will sort it out.

Or, to put it another way, don't let great be the enemy of good. (I'm sorry, because there's no space for gardens, there's no point in building homes here.)

How about this for a “grow the population” policy?

On the birth of your third child, you get a 5 bed house in a nice new garden city, that is in one of the areas that the country is trying to “level up”

A free house.

It’s not 640 acres of Norte Mexico, but..

Yes, that's pretty much the current scheme.

Work all your life to make a nice home for potential children - you're screwed. Just have the children - no worries.

That's not just wrong but offensively wrong. Anyone who thinks a life on benefits is anything but utter shite should try it and see how they get on.

stodge

Omnium said:

rcs1000 said:

Eabhal said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

That's the standard argument against any increased cost for landlords, direct or indirect.

I'm not so sure. I think that the rents are ultimately set by the overall demand and supply of housing in an area - not just that for rental properties. If increased costs for landlords mean that some rental properties aren't made available to renters, those properties don't just disappear.

There has been a significant change in housing tenure over the last 10 years, with a 28% increase in the number of households renting. Unless you think that for reasons of flexibility renting has become much more popular, this must be due to some change in housing supply.

When I was searching for my first flat, I was repeatedly matched by cash buyers seeing my city as an investment opportunity. In some cases, it was someone borrowing money from the bank to do the same. Much of the demand for rental properties comes from people like me who, despite having a significant deposit and a good job, simply could not compete with these people.

While that's true, it also makes building new homes less profitable because there are fewer potential purchasers.

The building of new homes would undoubtedly be more profitable if the builders actually worked on building the houses. So far as I can see ALL construction projects of any description in the UK have workers actually on site and working about 10% of the time. Even when they're working it's a man with a shovel whilst two colleagues comment on his style.

Construction projects, like any other project, need to be planned with resources and the capacity of those resources in mind and the point in the process where they are needed worked out.

You need all sorts of specialist trades at particular points and if there are shortages of those specialisms the projects will be delayed. This is one of the reasons why the lunatic idea of mass building construction needs to be debunked. Between the lack of specialist trades and the lack of buyers at the prices the developers want to charge in order to make a profit the "housing" problem is going to remain a problem.

Luckyguy1983

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tweedledee said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

I see Rod Liddle has said rather more about himself than he intended to reveal.

I don't think even one of our posters when roaring drunk would have done something like that.

Wot

https://x.com/seng84/status/1814931979558682750/photo/1

Urghhhh.

To protect PB from legal/police actions, links to Spectator articles are no longer permitted.

Thems the breaks if you write articles like that.

I find the article gross, but I defend Rod Liddle's right to say it in a free society, however gross.

WillG

Omnium said:

TimS said:

Omnium said:

pigeon said:

Those polling numbers re: the two child limit show us how sticky the old trope of the feckless mother pumping out kids to live off the benefits remains, and also why the Government feels on such solid ground digging its heels in. The election result may show that the foundations of the huge Labour majority are very shallow, but shoring them up relies on keeping the Conservative and Reform votes down, not shoring up the left flank where voter defection options are far more limited (splitting the Labour vote risks simply letting the right back in under most circumstances, with the Greens in second place in only about 40 seats IIRC.)

Essentially they're banking on getting re-elected through economic revival and the repair of public services (chiefly the knackered old NHS) going hand in hand. Social Security claimants (except, of course, pensioners) are at the back of the queue and will get scraps from the table only if there are any to spare. In this sense, at least, we're dealing with continuity Conservatism: if you can't afford to live then you're not working hard enough.

The trope is true though. A third child got you a house. So you go from a potentially productive person to a dependent woman with several children just because the system incentivises her to act in that way. (My step-sister did exactly this, and was happy to explain it)

Tax and benefits can produce hugely poor motivations.

Natal policy is going to be a newly important dividing line over the next few years. Like house building vs NIMBYism it doesn’t naturally fit left-right readings.

On one side, the nationalist right, fearful of immigration and keen to encourage births in the native population. Together with them the socialist left, and some of the traditionalist and religious right who were never comfortable with mothers working.

On the other, the Thatcherites sceptical of benefits spongers, the fiscal hawks wanting to keep a tight austerity grip on spending, and the eco-catastrophists obsessed with overpopulation.

Social engineering of any sort is pretty awful in my view. I watched the film 'How the West was Won' last night. Not a great film, and some hideous stereotypes - although actually quite funny now. The theme though of get out there and get on with it doesn't strike me as too far wrong though.

The idea that encouraging fertility is "social engineering" will cause policymakers to be blind to the demographic catastrophe facing us until it is too late.

MattW

Since we are slightly on housing policy, one important point is that Self-Build is a middle class activity, as anything less than a £750-800k budget in the SE, £500k in the rest of England, and probably £400k in Scotland / Wales is a fool's errand.

Unless you have a free plot from somewhere.

The cost of slicing your money budget a little is increasing the time budget from 3-4 years to 6-8 years.

Access needs to be broadened.

Omnium

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

rcs1000 said:

Eabhal said:

kyf_100 said:

Of all the things that Osborne did, making it so landlords can't deduct the cost of interest from costs associated with rental properties had to be the dumbest.

Coupled with the UK's chronic housing shortage, the result was that the increased cost was immediately passed on to renters. Bad enough when interest rates were ultra low, but now...

Osborne's policy is essentially a tax on renters. If there is any Osborne era policy that needs scrapping, start there.

That's the standard argument against any increased cost for landlords, direct or indirect.

I'm not so sure. I think that the rents are ultimately set by the overall demand and supply of housing in an area - not just that for rental properties. If increased costs for landlords mean that some rental properties aren't made available to renters, those properties don't just disappear.

There has been a significant change in housing tenure over the last 10 years, with a 28% increase in the number of households renting. Unless you think that for reasons of flexibility renting has become much more popular, this must be due to some change in housing supply.

When I was searching for my first flat, I was repeatedly matched by cash buyers seeing my city as an investment opportunity. In some cases, it was someone borrowing money from the bank to do the same. Much of the demand for rental properties comes from people like me who, despite having a significant deposit and a good job, simply could not compete with these people.

While that's true, it also makes building new homes less profitable because there are fewer potential purchasers.

The building of new homes would undoubtedly be more profitable if the builders actually worked on building the houses. So far as I can see ALL construction projects of any description in the UK have workers actually on site and working about 10% of the time. Even when they're working it's a man with a shovel whilst two colleagues comment on his style.

Just pre COVID, I was passing Chiswick Business park one morning.

A major trench was being dug in the main road, tons of cones, diggers and even a portacabin.

The hole was being contemplated by literally 8 blokes in hi-zi, all armed with the largest size of disposable coffee cup from StarFucks.

One young lad, the runt of the litter, was in the hole, digging by hand. While they made joking comments at his expense.

The fun of it is that the Eastern Europeans have picked up on this style. We now pay perhaps 2-3x the sensible amount for building works. They all turn up on day one, and make an intolerable babble. Thereinafter there's a chap with a hammer. Hammering seems very important in all works. When you happen to suggest that hammering might be unnecessary for painting and decorating you're met with blank stares and nobody speaks English. These same workmen aren't entirely tied to their names - they often seem to forget who they are. Could it be that I've stumbled across an isolated case of evasion, or could it be that there are one or two others as well.

(They all 'work' on multiple sites and they all aren't who they say they are)

Omnium

WillG said:

Omnium said:

TimS said:

Omnium said:

pigeon said:

Those polling numbers re: the two child limit show us how sticky the old trope of the feckless mother pumping out kids to live off the benefits remains, and also why the Government feels on such solid ground digging its heels in. The election result may show that the foundations of the huge Labour majority are very shallow, but shoring them up relies on keeping the Conservative and Reform votes down, not shoring up the left flank where voter defection options are far more limited (splitting the Labour vote risks simply letting the right back in under most circumstances, with the Greens in second place in only about 40 seats IIRC.)

Essentially they're banking on getting re-elected through economic revival and the repair of public services (chiefly the knackered old NHS) going hand in hand. Social Security claimants (except, of course, pensioners) are at the back of the queue and will get scraps from the table only if there are any to spare. In this sense, at least, we're dealing with continuity Conservatism: if you can't afford to live then you're not working hard enough.

The trope is true though. A third child got you a house. So you go from a potentially productive person to a dependent woman with several children just because the system incentivises her to act in that way. (My step-sister did exactly this, and was happy to explain it)

Tax and benefits can produce hugely poor motivations.

Natal policy is going to be a newly important dividing line over the next few years. Like house building vs NIMBYism it doesn’t naturally fit left-right readings.

On one side, the nationalist right, fearful of immigration and keen to encourage births in the native population. Together with them the socialist left, and some of the traditionalist and religious right who were never comfortable with mothers working.

On the other, the Thatcherites sceptical of benefits spongers, the fiscal hawks wanting to keep a tight austerity grip on spending, and the eco-catastrophists obsessed with overpopulation.

Social engineering of any sort is pretty awful in my view. I watched the film 'How the West was Won' last night. Not a great film, and some hideous stereotypes - although actually quite funny now. The theme though of get out there and get on with it doesn't strike me as too far wrong though.

The idea that encouraging fertility is "social engineering" will cause policymakers to be blind to the demographic catastrophe facing us until it is too late.

Actually this is a very good point. I've nothing much to offer as a response.