Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
IIRC he was formally appointed by the Sovereign three times... so....
I've always found his record of failed political careers remarkable. Failed in WWI, came back, failed, arguably failed when he came back to the Admiralty, PM, lost, lost, PM.
It seems like a new era for TheScreamingEagles. Two posts with decent content in a row.
We should all be very grateful for the time that TSE spends writing headers. (They are generally either good, very good or excellent). Without him the site would be much worse or possibly close.
If he can carry on from here as he now finally started doing, I am sure the future is very bright. Let's hope he doesn't go back to his old habits.
With respect I don't think this is the forum to criticise the quality of thread headers.
It's an unpaid job done mostly by TSE, but with others making excellent contributions, to preserve the format of a forum of which we all are members and value.
Feel free to comment on the content of the header, or argue with its opinions if they are offered, but acting like a old fashioned teacher barking feedback without context adds nothing, and it anything will annoy or demotivate the writers of thread headers.
My gut tends to agree, but the objective evidence is with @HYUFD atm.
Albeit the evidence is fairly thin. This is why Biden should have stood down as POTUS too. Give her time to become a known quantity.
I would not be placing a bet at these prices, I am short Trump and long Kamala though. I expect to be able to short him significantly more in the 1.45 region in the near future, although it would be nice if I'm wrong about that.
It seems like a new era for TheScreamingEagles. Two posts with decent content in a row.
We should all be very grateful for the time that TSE spends writing headers. (They are generally either good, very good or excellent). Without him the site would be much worse or possibly close.
I am not sure if @BatteryCorrectHorse is trying to be funny, is unaware of @TSE role in this forum, or is just being rude and juvenile but then I know who I respect in their contribution to this wonderful forum
Indeed. TSE is basically running the show since OGH became unwell and there would be no PB without him.
Anyone who enjoys this website should be thankful we have TSE to keep the show on the road... Even if he does have terrible taste in shoes and he remains a Posh Boys fanboy!
Let's not embarrass him. A figure of such legendary modesty commendably shies away from excessive praise.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
Judging by the VP contenders' media appearances today, Beshear really wants the slot.
A Democrat in a red state with the balls to take this kind of position - and to be re-elected - deserves it, IMO.
Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) on his re-election and vetoing anti-trans bills:
"All children are children of God … I was going to stand up for the most marginalized children who didn't deserve either a state legislature or an entire campaign picking on them." https://x.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1726806702421610566
My gut tends to agree, but the objective evidence is with @HYUFD atm.
Albeit the evidence is fairly thin. This is why Biden should have stood down as POTUS too. Give her time to become a known quantity.
I would not be placing a bet at these prices, I am short Trump and long Kamala though. I expect to be able to short him significantly more in the 1.45 region in the near future, although it would be nice if I'm wrong about that.
A lot of people, here, want Kamala to win. Because she isn't Trump, for a start.
The first thing in betting, is to ignore your heart.
If I still had US citizenship I would vote for Kamala - 100%. Because she isn't Trump.
But the election comes down to this -
1) 45% will vote for Trump, no matter what 2) 45% will vote against Trump, no matter what 3) Its the last 10%, in the swing states especially, that matter
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
Oooh, I'll debate that. This is Wikipedia desperately trying to rewrite the universe because they got British politics wrong. When British political articles started to be written, the wikifolk assumed that governments stopped during elections, but they don't: only the Parliaments do. To try to make sense of this they evolved two sets of articles: the "ministry" ones and the "government" ones, like this
But this was an artefact. Thatcher was continuously Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. She didn't "resign and was reappointed" in 1983 and 1987. Similarly Churchill didn't resign in 1945 to form a caretaker government, he remained Prime Minister and formed a caretaker government.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
Speaking of felons in the running for Head of Government . . .
My own avatar, Eugene Victor Debs was nominated for President four times by the Socialist Party of America: 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920.
The first three times were after his conviction and jail sentence, for violating a federal injunction in connection with strike by his American Railway Union (on grounds of obstruction of US mail) in 1894.
His last race followed his second conviction and prison sentence, for sedition after US entered WW1, consisting of giving anti-war speech.
Incidentally, EVD made friends with his jailers and wardens, for his general good behavior AND for his positive impact on his fellow prisoners.
My gut tends to agree, but the objective evidence is with @HYUFD atm.
Albeit the evidence is fairly thin. This is why Biden should have stood down as POTUS too. Give her time to become a known quantity.
I would not be placing a bet at these prices, I am short Trump and long Kamala though. I expect to be able to short him significantly more in the 1.45 region in the near future, although it would be nice if I'm wrong about that.
Yes. I think @HYUFD is too absolutist in his views on Harris. But on the other side of the coin, it is clear that at the moment, with the evidence we have, she like Biden is lagging behind Trump.
She has a convention to set out her stall and then around 2.5 months to change that. I think she’s got what it takes to do it and therefore she’s worth a bet at current odds. But she is not a slam dunk (and neither is Trump).
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices don't go up. The problem is that this hasn't happened in the housing market in a long, long time. In most places.
Speaking of felons in the running for Head of Government . . .
My own avatar, Eugene Victor Debs was nominated for President four times by the Socialist Party of America: 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920.
The first three times were after his conviction and jail sentence, for violating a federal injunction in connection with strike by his American Railway Union (on grounds of obstruction of US mail) in 1894.
His last race followed his second conviction and prison sentence, for sedition after US entered WW1, consisting of giving anti-war speech.
Incidentally, EVD made friends with his jailers and wardens, for his general good behavior AND for his positive impact on his fellow prisoners.
My gut tends to agree, but the objective evidence is with @HYUFD atm.
Albeit the evidence is fairly thin. This is why Biden should have stood down as POTUS too. Give her time to become a known quantity.
I would not be placing a bet at these prices, I am short Trump and long Kamala though. I expect to be able to short him significantly more in the 1.45 region in the near future, although it would be nice if I'm wrong about that.
Note that NYT and other media are reporting, that key reason Biden decided to withdraw from the race, were his campaign's own polling in battleground states. Which reportedly convinced him that following his disastrous debate versus Trump, he was on track to lose to DJT in November.
Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
Oooh, I'll debate that. This is Wikipedia desperately trying to rewrite the universe because they got British politics wrong. When British political articles started to be written, the wikifolk assumed that governments stopped during elections, but they don't: only the Parliaments do. To try to make sense of this they evolved two sets of articles: the "ministry" ones and the "government" ones, like this
But this was an artefact. Thatcher was continuously Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. She didn't "resign and was reappointed" in 1983 and 1987. Similarly Churchill didn't resign in 1945 to form a caretaker government, he remained Prime Minister and formed a caretaker government.
Is the “ministry” terminology even correct? From my understanding a government that wins an election simply continues in office unaffected, there is no constitutional distinction between that government pre- and post- election. It is the same ministry until the government is dismissed, which is only done when a PM resigns.
“The Thatcher ministry under the 1979-1983 Parliament” might be more appropriate parlance, though a mouthful!
Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
Ah... I didn't know about the "caretaker" appointment. I should read more Boris biographies lol!
Perhaps the most amusing of WSC's caretaker government appointments in 1945, was Brendan Bracken as First Lord of the Admiralty.
Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
Oooh, I'll debate that. This is Wikipedia desperately trying to rewrite the universe because they got British politics wrong. When British political articles started to be written, the wikifolk assumed that governments stopped during elections, but they don't: only the Parliaments do. To try to make sense of this they evolved two sets of articles: the "ministry" ones and the "government" ones, like this
But this was an artefact. Thatcher was continuously Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. She didn't "resign and was reappointed" in 1983 and 1987. Similarly Churchill didn't resign in 1945 to form a caretaker government, he remained Prime Minister and formed a caretaker government.
He did actually resign, on behalf of the National Government. He was immediately reappointed to form a new government of only Conservatives (although an Independent remained Chancellor and a National Liberal Lord Chancellor).
For definitive evidence, we should note Butler and Butler's Twentieth Century British Political Facts lists the two administrations separately.
You are of course right about Wikipedia's lack of understanding of British politics, but wrong on this particular point.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices don't go up. The problem is that this hasn't happened in the housing market in a long, long time. In most places.
If demand is flat then prices won't change. Stranger things have happened in economics.
No evidence for this, a hunch - I think there is a snowball effect where packing loads of people into city centres creates a strong economy and makes those areas attractive to young people (especially if you're on Hinge). Demand grows on the back of that increased supply of young people and... DOOM LOOP.
Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
Ah... I didn't know about the "caretaker" appointment. I should read more Boris biographies lol!
I think he had wanted the National Government to continue until the conflict with Japan was concluded but with the collapse of Italy and the end of the war in Europe, Party politics began to come to the fore once again and the momentum for an election became unstoppable.
The non-Conservative members of the National Government quit and were replaced by Conservatives - Churchill didn't need to resign as the Conservatives alone had a majority in the Commons but it had been a decade since the previous election and a number of MPs wanted to go.
The timing was such that Churchill had to leave the Potsdam Conference and Attlee went back having won the election.
Speaking of felons in the running for Head of Government . . .
My own avatar, Eugene Victor Debs was nominated for President four times by the Socialist Party of America: 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920.
The first three times were after his conviction and jail sentence, for violating a federal injunction in connection with strike by his American Railway Union (on grounds of obstruction of US mail) in 1894.
His last race followed his second conviction and prison sentence, for sedition after US entered WW1, consisting of giving anti-war speech.
Incidentally, EVD made friends with his jailers and wardens, for his general good behavior AND for his positive impact on his fellow prisoners.
Speaking of felons in the running for Head of Government . . .
My own avatar, Eugene Victor Debs was nominated for President four times by the Socialist Party of America: 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920.
The first three times were after his conviction and jail sentence, for violating a federal injunction in connection with strike by his American Railway Union (on grounds of obstruction of US mail) in 1894.
His last race followed his second conviction and prison sentence, for sedition after US entered WW1, consisting of giving anti-war speech.
Incidentally, EVD made friends with his jailers and wardens, for his general good behavior AND for his positive impact on his fellow prisoners.
Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
Ah... I didn't know about the "caretaker" appointment. I should read more Boris biographies lol!
I think he had wanted the National Government to continue until the conflict with Japan was concluded but with the collapse of Italy and the end of the war in Europe, Party politics began to come to the fore once again and the momentum for an election became unstoppable.
The non-Conservative members of the National Government quit and were replaced by Conservatives - Churchill didn't need to resign as the Conservatives alone had a majority in the Commons but it had been a decade since the previous election and a number of MPs wanted to go.
The timing was such that Churchill had to leave the Potsdam Conference and Attlee went back having won the election.
Unstoppable mainly because the Labour Party refused to continue the Coaltion past VE Day.
In large part, because at that time, nobody could predict with any certainty (the Vicar being sadly unavailable or rather non-existent then) how long it was gonna be before VJ Day.
ADDENDUM & Pungent PB Pundit Alert - NOT all Caretaker Govt. members were Conservatives; they also included Liberal Nationals and National Labour.
Forget about USA presidency for now and look at a far more important election with a likely female coronation..... Wales.
It now looks like Eluned Morgan will be the only nominee and could be selected as Welsh Labour Leader on Wednesday. Still needs to be approved as First Minister but that should be a formality.
But for a fascinating background read on how we got here, take a read of this blog from Lee Waters - MS who was arguably the first to stab VG in the back...
In Scotland we have an SNP government who have completely run out of steam and are expending their remaining energy consuming each other. At the 2026 Holyrood elections we have the prospects of Labour replacing them in government possibly with the support of the LibDems.
In Wales the Labour government is also in face-eating mode. But who is going to replace them - a Plaid + Tory ticket?
I could see Plaid matching or exceeding Labour seats but would struggle to get a working majority as Greens and LDs won't get many seats between them. Unless Welsh Conservatives change tack they couldnt be a realistic coalition partner - and of course Reform or Abolish would be totally unacceptable. The only viable ans sustainable coalitions would be Labour Plaid or Plaid Labour.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices don't go up. The problem is that this hasn't happened in the housing market in a long, long time. In most places.
Yes that is the economic axiom but I do not believe our property market is an ideal free market and for that reason it the supply demand curve is not as important. Look at the Chinese property boom. Huge supply, beyond all need but also huge costs relative to the average income.
Forget about USA presidency for now and look at a far more important election with a likely female coronation..... Wales.
It now looks like Eluned Morgan will be the only nominee and could be selected as Welsh Labour Leader on Wednesday. Still needs to be approved as First Minister but that should be a formality.
But for a fascinating background read on how we got here, take a read of this blog from Lee Waters - MS who was arguably the first to stab VG in the back...
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices don't go up. The problem is that this hasn't happened in the housing market in a long, long time. In most places.
If demand is flat then prices won't change. Stranger things have happened in economics.
No evidence for this, a hunch - I think there is a snowball effect where packing loads of people into city centres creates a strong economy and makes those areas attractive to young people (especially if you're on Hinge). Demand grows on the back of that increased supply of young people and... DOOM LOOP.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices don't go up. The problem is that this hasn't happened in the housing market in a long, long time. In most places.
If demand is flat then prices won't change. Stranger things have happened in economics.
No evidence for this, a hunch - I think there is a snowball effect where packing loads of people into city centres creates a strong economy and makes those areas attractive to young people (especially if you're on Hinge). Demand grows on the back of that increased supply of young people and... DOOM LOOP.
So, I had to google Hinge.
Not being on it, does that make me unhinged?
It makes your mental health much better than most single people in their 20s.
Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
Ah... I didn't know about the "caretaker" appointment. I should read more Boris biographies lol!
Boris Johnson surely could have benefited from having a caretaker while he was partying hearty at No. 10.
I've been really surprised by all the fire and energy around Harris as a candidate. Clearly coordinated, but there is a kind of desperate verve to the online messaging. People are keen to go into battle against Trump.
Will it last?
The anti-Harris peeps are also getting going. See the following tweet from Musk, where Harris describes who she is and what she's wearing in a meeting.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
Of course you can, if supply exceeds demand and if supply can be easily created.
My first HDTV I bought cost over £1000, in then-money, which would be well over two grand in today's prices. Today you can get a bigger and better one for £200 in today-money.
Why hasn't the price of TVs gone up as we can afford to pay more? Why has it gone down instead? Because there's healthy competition in that market, but there is not in the housing market.
There's no reason why house prices can't go down by the same amount as TV prices have. If the barriers to entry to the market were removed so any skilled tradesperson could just build a house for anyone who wants one, rather than need an army of lawyers and a forest of paperwork first to get "permission" to do so, then they would come down.
PS - if racing the train between Combe Junction Halt and Liskeard its much easier on the heart to start at Liskeard rather than running up the one in five gradient.
But rather less consential in terms of missing the train if you do the uphill direction given Combe only gets 2 trains a day.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Farage called her Black then half-corrected himself to African-American but made a mess of it because it is not a term we use over here, so it is not in his muscle memory. I'd give him a pass here, even though I disagree with his wider sentiment.
What I'd like to know is why Farage is even commenting and thinks the next US Presidential election is any of his business?
He quite rightly criticized Obama's intervention in our EU referendum but is perfectly happy to stick his nose into America politics whenever he feels like it.
Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
Ah... I didn't know about the "caretaker" appointment. I should read more Boris biographies lol!
I think he had wanted the National Government to continue until the conflict with Japan was concluded but with the collapse of Italy and the end of the war in Europe, Party politics began to come to the fore once again and the momentum for an election became unstoppable.
The non-Conservative members of the National Government quit and were replaced by Conservatives - Churchill didn't need to resign as the Conservatives alone had a majority in the Commons but it had been a decade since the previous election and a number of MPs wanted to go.
The timing was such that Churchill had to leave the Potsdam Conference and Attlee went back having won the election.
Unstoppable mainly because the Labour Party refused to continue the Coaltion past VE Day.
In large part, because at that time, nobody could predict with any certainty (the Vicar being sadly unavailable or rather non-existent then) how long it was gonna be before VJ Day.
ADDENDUM & Pungent PB Pundit Alert - NOT all Caretaker Govt. members were Conservatives; they also included Liberal Nationals and National Labour.
The National Liberals were politically aligned with the Conservatives by then. Gwilym Lloyd George also remained as Minister for Fuel and Power. All the Labour members left on 23rd May. Sir John Anderson was non party.
So, on 23rd May 1945, the German "caretaker" Government led by Doenitz was dissolved while in Britain a caretaker Government led by Churchill was formed.
Speaking of felons in the running for Head of Government . . .
My own avatar, Eugene Victor Debs was nominated for President four times by the Socialist Party of America: 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920.
The first three times were after his conviction and jail sentence, for violating a federal injunction in connection with strike by his American Railway Union (on grounds of obstruction of US mail) in 1894.
His last race followed his second conviction and prison sentence, for sedition after US entered WW1, consisting of giving anti-war speech.
Incidentally, EVD made friends with his jailers and wardens, for his general good behavior AND for his positive impact on his fellow prisoners.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
Farage called her Black then half-corrected himself to African-American but made a mess of it because it is not a term we use over here, so it is not in his muscle memory. I'd give him a pass here, even though I disagree with his wider sentiment.
What I'd like to know is why Farage is even commenting and thinks the next US Presidential election is any of his business?
He quite rightly criticized Obama's intervention in our EU referendum but is perfectly happy to stick his nose into America politics whenever he feels like it.
Any of Farage's business? Heck, he's turned Trump-fluffing into a (much-needed?) profit center!
As for his hypocrisy in THIS respect, just one more gob of spit in his ocean of . . . .
It seems like a new era for TheScreamingEagles. Two posts with decent content in a row.
Please be a nicer person to the nice person who publishes my articles.
Plus, let us not forget, who also is recovering from an abscess operation whilst providing sufficient articles each day to give us a place where grown adults can bitch about their hobby horses. For free.
I will be very happy to acknowledge a consistent posting of good content, until then I will remain sceptical. I think they should start charging for this site or provide donations, I'd be happy to donate a significant sum of money
Let's not embarrass him. A figure of such legendary modesty commendably shies away from excessive praise.
As long as they continue to post non-tripe content that's good quality then they'll have nothing but praise from me. But I will remain sceptical until we see consistency in that area.
Question for @leon or any other AI obsessives. I am starting another business venture and need a business logo creating. Which AI should I use to create the thing?
I can broadly describe what I am looking for, but am not a graphic designer...
It seems like a new era for TheScreamingEagles. Two posts with decent content in a row.
We should all be very grateful for the time that TSE spends writing headers. (They are generally either good, very good or excellent). Without him the site would be much worse or possibly close.
I am not sure if @BatteryCorrectHorse is trying to be funny, is unaware of @TSE role in this forum, or is just being rude and juvenile but then I know who I respect in their contribution to this wonderful forum
Indeed. TSE is basically running the show since OGH became unwell and there would be no PB without him.
Anyone who enjoys this website should be thankful we have TSE to keep the show on the road... Even if he does have terrible taste in shoes and he remains a Posh Boys fanboy!
Let's not embarrass him. A figure of such legendary modesty commendably shies away from excessive praise.
Indeed.
Plus I have the ultimate deterrence when people annoy me.
I can use that Nigel Farage photo in a thread header.
It seems like a new era for TheScreamingEagles. Two posts with decent content in a row.
We should all be very grateful for the time that TSE spends writing headers. (They are generally either good, very good or excellent). Without him the site would be much worse or possibly close.
I am not sure if @BatteryCorrectHorse is trying to be funny, is unaware of @TSE role in this forum, or is just being rude and juvenile but then I know who I respect in their contribution to this wonderful forum
Indeed. TSE is basically running the show since OGH became unwell and there would be no PB without him.
Anyone who enjoys this website should be thankful we have TSE to keep the show on the road... Even if he does have terrible taste in shoes and he remains a Posh Boys fanboy!
Let's not embarrass him. A figure of such legendary modesty commendably shies away from excessive praise.
Indeed.
Plus I have the ultimate deterrence when people annoy me.
I can use that Nigel Farage photo in a thread header.
Can we all have an immediate agreement not to ever annoy TSE?
Let's not embarrass him. A figure of such legendary modesty commendably shies away from excessive praise.
As long as they continue to post non-tripe content that's good quality then they'll have nothing but praise from me. But I will remain sceptical until we see consistency in that area.
There are periodic tip drives, but not had one for a while.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
There needs to be a progressive tax on income from property rentals. That way you encourage home ownership and landlords that have 2-3 properties, but discourages massive private equity firms from capturing the surplus from rising house prices. We need to return to a property-owning democracy, as Thatcher envisioned.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
Of course you can, if supply exceeds demand and if supply can be easily created.
My first HDTV I bought cost over £1000, in then-money, which would be well over two grand in today's prices. Today you can get a bigger and better one for £200 in today-money.
Why hasn't the price of TVs gone up as we can afford to pay more? Why has it gone down instead? Because there's healthy competition in that market, but there is not in the housing market.
There's no reason why house prices can't go down by the same amount as TV prices have. If the barriers to entry to the market were removed so any skilled tradesperson could just build a house for anyone who wants one, rather than need an army of lawyers and a forest of paperwork first to get "permission" to do so, then they would come down.
Go to Canary Wharf buy a pint now go to Tower Hamlets and do the same. Part of pricing a product is knowing the financial positions of your customers.
Why do you think every big consumer serving company wants an app? Part of it is they want to make prices dynamic and what you can afford is part of the pricing algo.
Just struck me, if Harris wins the presidency both the UK and US will be run be ex-prosecutors.
What was Harris's dad's profession?
Trump's was clearly a tool maker
In 2019 the U.K. and US were both run by men who are now convicted criminals, of course.
UK has had a PM who was in prison, before. Three times PM, actually.
Really? Who?
Winston Churchill was imprisoned by the Boers.
He afterwards based his prisons policies, as Home Sec, on his experiences there.
I'm struggling to work out how Winston was three times PM? 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 were his two terms in office weren't they?
He was Prime Minister of the National Government from 1940-45, then resigned, was immediately reappointed and formed a 'caretaker' Conservative government. Having lost the elections of 1945 and 1950 he returned to power in 1951.
So yes, three times is technically correct.
Oooh, I'll debate that. This is Wikipedia desperately trying to rewrite the universe because they got British politics wrong. When British political articles started to be written, the wikifolk assumed that governments stopped during elections, but they don't: only the Parliaments do. To try to make sense of this they evolved two sets of articles: the "ministry" ones and the "government" ones, like this
But this was an artefact. Thatcher was continuously Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. She didn't "resign and was reappointed" in 1983 and 1987. Similarly Churchill didn't resign in 1945 to form a caretaker government, he remained Prime Minister and formed a caretaker government.
He did actually resign, on behalf of the National Government. He was immediately reappointed to form a new government of only Conservatives (although an Independent remained Chancellor and a National Liberal Lord Chancellor).
For definitive evidence, we should note Butler and Butler's Twentieth Century British Political Facts lists the two administrations separately.
You are of course right about Wikipedia's lack of understanding of British politics, but wrong on this particular point.
Yes, you are correct. I looked at Wikipedia and downloaded the pdf of "Churchill: A Life" to check. He resigned on noon May 23rd and was reappointed by the King (Wiki says 4pm that day)
See the text between "Churchill realised that nothing could now save the coalition" on page 845 and "Two days later he gave a farewell Party at 10 Downing Street to the outgoing Coalition Cabinet" on page 846 of the book "Churchill: A Life" by Martin Gilbert
Anecdotally, most of the dog attacks are now on owners rather than random unfortunates. I suppose the restrictions are making "Demon" even more pissed off than usual.
The government thought that were 10,000 XL Bullies. 60,000 have been registered. Probably over 100,000?
"Jay Slater and our true-crime-poisoned culture The cruel online response to the 19-year-old’s disappearance shows how real people’s lives have become fodder for content. By Sarah Manavis"
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
There needs to be a progressive tax on income from property rentals. That way you encourage home ownership and landlords that have 2-3 properties, but discourages massive private equity firms from capturing the surplus from rising house prices. We need to return to a property-owning democracy, as Thatcher envisioned.
There already is, though. Everyone has a £1K tax free allowance for rental. And then the income tax scaling.
Sure, the stepwise scaling up leaves something to be desired. And doesn't attack your issue.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
One of the scandals in Birmingham is the thousand flats in Perry Barr built in 2022 and still empty. People are willing to buy them (with a mortgage) for £180k but lenders aren't willing to value them above £130k. In the end, they're all going to go to cash buyers who will rent them out or put them on AirBnB. The govt needs to do something soon to make sure young people can own homes like the previous generations could.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
But the same point does apply, only from the other side, the income side.
Imagine I'm an investor looking at property. I will value it as the NPV in perpetuity of the rental income it will generate. To work that out - the NPV - I'll take the annual rent and divide it by a suitable yield. The yield I use will depend on where interest rates are. The lower this is the higher will be the value of the property.
Or look at it this way if it's easier. If I can only earn peanuts on my cash in the bank it will make me more likely to want to buy property instead. This pushes up prices. Conversely if rates were now to double or triple (as they have) I'll be more likely to want to switch out of property into cash. This will depress prices.
This is not an opinion, it's just how it works. This is how you value an asset. The income it will generate capitalized at a suitable yield. With that yield depending on the interest rate environment.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
As explained, higher rates act to depress prices not support them.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices don't go up. The problem is that this hasn't happened in the housing market in a long, long time. In most places.
If demand is flat then prices won't change. Stranger things have happened in economics.
No evidence for this, a hunch - I think there is a snowball effect where packing loads of people into city centres creates a strong economy and makes those areas attractive to young people (especially if you're on Hinge). Demand grows on the back of that increased supply of young people and... DOOM LOOP.
As I believe Michael Gove and @Leon have separately pointed out, you get better sex in the city.
Anyone who watched the Kamala speech, you didn't miss much. Nothing of consequence revealed other than Joe Biden is great. To be fair she was meeting athletes etc so it wasn't the right venue to start talking about her candidacy.
Anyone who watched the Kamala speech, you didn't miss much. Nothing of consequence revealed other than Joe Biden is great. To be fair she was meeting athletes etc so it wasn't the right venue to start talking about her candidacy.
REally? I would have thought it was a great chance to say she was also running.
New York Times (via Seattle Times) - Why Obama Hasn’t Endorsed Harris
Many of the marquee names in Democratic politics began quickly lining up behind Vice President Kamala Harris on Sunday, but one towering presence in the party was conspicuously and purposefully absent: Barack Obama. . . .
Republicans interpreted that as a snub. But people close to Obama, who has positioned himself as an impartial elder statesman above intraparty machinations, said not to read too much into it — and had no alternate candidate in mind when he made the decision not to immediately endorse Harris.
Obama adopted an identical stance four years ago when Biden’s aides pressured him to endorse early in the Democratic primaries before Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out. (Obama’s favored phrase back then was “I don’t want to thumb the scale.”) Endorsing too early now would also be a political mistake — fueling criticism that Harris’ nomination, should it come, was a coronation rather than the best possible consensus under rushed circumstances, they said. . . .
But there are other more personal considerations, exacerbating Obama’s innate caution.
Biden is a deeply prideful man, and he has never fully forgiven Obama for quietly backing . . . Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign . . . Nor . . . when Obama told him that he should consider sitting out 2020, too, people in his circle have said.
Obama wanted Sunday to be about Biden, a celebration of his accomplishments — and does not feel pressured to act hastily, according to a former White House official who speaks with the former president regularly.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
Of course you can, if supply exceeds demand and if supply can be easily created.
My first HDTV I bought cost over £1000, in then-money, which would be well over two grand in today's prices. Today you can get a bigger and better one for £200 in today-money.
Why hasn't the price of TVs gone up as we can afford to pay more? Why has it gone down instead? Because there's healthy competition in that market, but there is not in the housing market.
There's no reason why house prices can't go down by the same amount as TV prices have. If the barriers to entry to the market were removed so any skilled tradesperson could just build a house for anyone who wants one, rather than need an army of lawyers and a forest of paperwork first to get "permission" to do so, then they would come down.
Mass market consumer goods to income generating asset isn't a good comparison.
Comments
I've always found his record of failed political careers remarkable. Failed in WWI, came back, failed, arguably failed when he came back to the Admiralty, PM, lost, lost, PM.
It's an unpaid job done mostly by TSE, but with others making excellent contributions, to preserve the format of a forum of which we all are members and value.
Feel free to comment on the content of the header, or argue with its opinions if they are offered, but acting like a old fashioned teacher barking feedback without context adds nothing, and it anything will annoy or demotivate the writers of thread headers.
Albeit the evidence is fairly thin. This is why Biden should have stood down as POTUS too. Give her time to become a known quantity.
I would not be placing a bet at these prices, I am short Trump and long Kamala though. I expect to be able to short him significantly more in the 1.45 region in the near future, although it would be nice if I'm wrong about that.
A figure of such legendary modesty commendably shies away from excessive praise.
The first thing in betting, is to ignore your heart.
If I still had US citizenship I would vote for Kamala - 100%. Because she isn't Trump.
But the election comes down to this -
1) 45% will vote for Trump, no matter what
2) 45% will vote against Trump, no matter what
3) Its the last 10%, in the swing states especially, that matter
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiership_of_Margaret_Thatcher
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Thatcher_ministry
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Thatcher_ministry
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Thatcher_ministry
or even- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_government,_1974–1979
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_government,_1974–1979#Wilson_ministry
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_government,_1974–1979#Callaghan_ministry
But this was an artefact. Thatcher was continuously Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. She didn't "resign and was reappointed" in 1983 and 1987. Similarly Churchill didn't resign in 1945 to form a caretaker government, he remained Prime Minister and formed a caretaker government.My own avatar, Eugene Victor Debs was nominated for President four times by the Socialist Party of America: 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920.
The first three times were after his conviction and jail sentence, for violating a federal injunction in connection with strike by his American Railway Union (on grounds of obstruction of US mail) in 1894.
His last race followed his second conviction and prison sentence, for sedition after US entered WW1, consisting of giving anti-war speech.
Incidentally, EVD made friends with his jailers and wardens, for his general good behavior AND for his positive impact on his fellow prisoners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
She has a convention to set out her stall and then around 2.5 months to change that. I think she’s got what it takes to do it and therefore she’s worth a bet at current odds. But she is not a slam dunk (and neither is Trump).
A refusal to consider downballot consequences is how we got Gov. Jan Brewer. All except Beshear have downsides:
• AZ: Special 2 years before end of term
• PA: GOP Senate prez becomes LG & breaks ties until '26
• NC: GOP LG would be acting gov whenever Cooper leaves state
https://x.com/DavidNir/status/1815161947983327243
In any event, who followed my tip when he was in three figures ?
“The Thatcher ministry under the 1979-1983 Parliament” might be more appropriate parlance, though a mouthful!
For definitive evidence, we should note Butler and Butler's Twentieth Century British Political Facts lists the two administrations separately.
You are of course right about Wikipedia's lack of understanding of British politics, but wrong on this particular point.
No evidence for this, a hunch - I think there is a snowball effect where packing loads of people into city centres creates a strong economy and makes those areas attractive to young people (especially if you're on Hinge). Demand grows on the back of that increased supply of young people and... DOOM LOOP.
The non-Conservative members of the National Government quit and were replaced by Conservatives - Churchill didn't need to resign as the Conservatives alone had a majority in the Commons but it had been a decade since the previous election and a number of MPs wanted to go.
The timing was such that Churchill had to leave the Potsdam Conference and Attlee went back having won the election.
Sir Humphrey: And as you know the letters JB are the highest honour in the Commonwealth.
Hacker: JB?
Sir Humphrey: Jailed by the British. Gandhi, Nkrumah, Makarios, Ben Gurion, Kenyatta, Nehru, Mugabe, the list of world leaders is endless, and contains several of our students.
In large part, because at that time, nobody could predict with any certainty (the Vicar being sadly unavailable or rather non-existent then) how long it was gonna be before VJ Day.
ADDENDUM & Pungent PB Pundit Alert - NOT all Caretaker Govt. members were Conservatives; they also included Liberal Nationals and National Labour.
Charli XCX backs Harris: ‘Kamala IS brat’
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4785802-charli-xcx-kamala-harris-brat-biden-2024/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/07/21/germans-surrender-driving-license-for-free-public-transport/#:~:text=Germans are handing over their,country's reliance on automobiles.
Not being on it, does that make me unhinged?
So no.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12842355/Im-Celebs-Nigel-Farage-coping-Jungle-life-chain-smoking-puffing-PACK-day-ITV-granted-special-permission-smoke-camp.html
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1815193874366640591
It turns out she was addressing a meeting of disabled people, some of whom were blind.
Musk is a real ****.
My first HDTV I bought cost over £1000, in then-money, which would be well over two grand in today's prices. Today you can get a bigger and better one for £200 in today-money.
Why hasn't the price of TVs gone up as we can afford to pay more? Why has it gone down instead? Because there's healthy competition in that market, but there is not in the housing market.
There's no reason why house prices can't go down by the same amount as TV prices have. If the barriers to entry to the market were removed so any skilled tradesperson could just build a house for anyone who wants one, rather than need an army of lawyers and a forest of paperwork first to get "permission" to do so, then they would come down.
But rather less consential in terms of missing the train if you do the uphill direction given Combe only gets 2 trains a day.
He quite rightly criticized Obama's intervention in our EU referendum but is perfectly happy to stick his nose into America politics whenever he feels like it.
So, on 23rd May 1945, the German "caretaker" Government led by Doenitz was dissolved while in Britain a caretaker Government led by Churchill was formed.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
You think I just fell out of a coconut tree?
https://x.com/JBPritzker/status/1815401261690208303
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
As for his hypocrisy in THIS respect, just one more gob of spit in his ocean of . . . .
I’m guessing you haven’t. Yet.
I can broadly describe what I am looking for, but am not a graphic designer...
Plus I have the ultimate deterrence when people annoy me.
I can use that Nigel Farage photo in a thread header.
"Woman in her 30s dies after being attacked by pet dog in Coventry"
https://news.sky.com/story/woman-in-her-30s-dies-after-being-attacked-by-pet-dog-in-coventry-13183375
In other words: who knows?
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
For whatever reason, it became a meme.
Centrist Cultists please explain
Why do you think every big consumer serving company wants an app? Part of it is they want to make prices dynamic and what you can afford is part of the pricing algo.
Yvette Cooper has just confirmed that the now-aborted Rwanda Scheme cost the U.K. taxpayer £700m to send just 4 “volunteers” to Rwanda.
And that the previous govt budgeted a total £10 Billion cost.
https://x.com/AlPinkerton/status/1815396376483614795
See the text between "Churchill realised that nothing could now save the coalition" on page 845 and "Two days later he gave a farewell Party at 10 Downing Street to the outgoing Coalition Cabinet" on page 846 of the book "Churchill: A Life" by Martin Gilbert
The government thought that were 10,000 XL Bullies. 60,000 have been registered. Probably over 100,000?
"Jay Slater and our true-crime-poisoned culture
The cruel online response to the 19-year-old’s disappearance shows how real people’s lives have become fodder for content.
By Sarah Manavis"
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/07/jay-slater-our-true-crime-poisoned-culture
Sure, the stepwise scaling up leaves something to be desired. And doesn't attack your issue.
Imagine I'm an investor looking at property. I will value it as the NPV in perpetuity of the rental income it will generate. To work that out - the NPV - I'll take the annual rent and divide it by a suitable yield. The yield I use will depend on where interest rates are. The lower this is the higher will be the value of the property.
Or look at it this way if it's easier. If I can only earn peanuts on my cash in the bank it will make me more likely to want to buy property instead. This pushes up prices. Conversely if rates were now to double or triple (as they have) I'll be more likely to want to switch out of property into cash. This will depress prices.
This is not an opinion, it's just how it works. This is how you value an asset. The income it will generate capitalized at a suitable yield. With that yield depending on the interest rate environment.
Many of the marquee names in Democratic politics began quickly lining up behind Vice President Kamala Harris on Sunday, but one towering presence in the party was conspicuously and purposefully absent: Barack Obama. . . .
Republicans interpreted that as a snub. But people close to Obama, who has positioned himself as an impartial elder statesman above intraparty machinations, said not to read too much into it — and had no alternate candidate in mind when he made the decision not to immediately endorse Harris.
Obama adopted an identical stance four years ago when Biden’s aides pressured him to endorse early in the Democratic primaries before Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out. (Obama’s favored phrase back then was “I don’t want to thumb the scale.”) Endorsing too early now would also be a political mistake — fueling criticism that Harris’ nomination, should it come, was a coronation rather than the best possible consensus under rushed circumstances, they said. . . .
But there are other more personal considerations, exacerbating Obama’s innate caution.
Biden is a deeply prideful man, and he has never fully forgiven Obama for quietly backing . . . Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign . . . Nor . . . when Obama told him that he should consider sitting out 2020, too, people in his circle have said.
Obama wanted Sunday to be about Biden, a celebration of his accomplishments — and does not feel pressured to act hastily, according to a former White House official who speaks with the former president regularly.
They seem a little rattled.
https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/1815377272268050735?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q