The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
Status changes can result in substantial support changes sometimes. See Starmer's net approval ratings once he took office as PM vs before he did.
Starmer had just been elected PM by the voters themselves, what an absurd comparison
I don't see what is absurd about it. You doubted opinions change swiftly (24 hours to be precise), I've pointed out that opinions can change pretty quickly in some circumstances, such as a status change.
Now, we might disagree that that will happen in the Harris case, but the point I raised did not say that it would. In fact I don't expect to see a big change. I said status changes can result in changes.
Indeed, that I don't expect a big change for Harris and yet you appear to assume I did despite me not saying as much raises interesting questions about your rather emotive reaction to the possibility.
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
Desperate
Maybe consistent but in the real 24/7 news cycle and events opinions change and rapidly
If I was in the Trump camp I would be far more worried today then before Biden stood down
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Or do only biological children count in your blood and soil world?
In strictest terms yes though I am sure she was a fine stepmother it is not quite the same
Isn't it a rather better to be VPOTUS and have a fulfilling relationship with step kids than to be a PM who denies parentage of his own children? as one recent Tory PM did.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
If they cave in it will be their ERM ejection or illicit party cake moment.
It will also mean they get Trussified by the markets sooner rather than later.
People are willing to make sacrificies to get things turned around, but not to ladel more of their money to workshy scroungers who already get tens of thousands a year in benefits and rent paid for them.
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
Desperate
Maybe consistent but in the real 24/7 news cycle and events opinions change and rapidly
If I was in the Trump camp I would be far more worried today then before Biden stood down
Indeed I expect Harris will be the next POTUS
I’m sure you’re right. We oldies must stick together!
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Or do only biological children count in your blood and soil world?
In strictest terms yes though I am sure she was a fine stepmother it is not quite the same
Where is the cut off point for you? If someone becomes a step mum to a one year old and then raises them to adulthood, or adopts, is that similar enough?
Particularly since the accusation is about a lack of direct stake in the country (we'll ignore that's an idiotic idea for a moment), yet someone who does either of the above clearly does have a stake.
So do any step mums have a stake? Those who have been so since a very young age for the child only? None?
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
Desperate
Maybe consistent but in the real 24/7 news cycle and events opinions change and rapidly
If I was in the Trump camp I would be far more worried today then before Biden stood down
Indeed I expect Harris will be the next POTUS
There is definitely a hint of fear in the Trump campaign. It may not last as they solidify their attack lines etc but it is a little refreshing to see considering how complacent they have been getting of late.
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?
New housing estates often have a "no sale to landlords" condition.
If necessary that could be regulated via a modified Change of Use mechanism.
We already have it in place eg for larger HMOs, which in many places need PP, and Landlord Licensing (an expensive mess but it exists).
Labour have it in their Kings Speech notes to create a national English DB of LLs, as Scotland already has in place.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
If they cave in it will be their ERM ejection or illicit party cake moment.
It will also mean they get Trussified by the markets sooner rather than later.
People are willing to make sacrificies to get things turned around, but not to ladel more of their money to workshy scroungers who already get tens of thousands a year in benefits and rent paid for them.
Indeed, in spite of the intense lobbying as well as Panorama last week and lots of pieces on the local news that are effectively recycled anti benefits cap lobbyists press releases the polling still shows people overwhelmingly support it.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
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?
New housing estates often have a "no sale to landlords" condition.
If necessary that could be regulated via a modified Change of Use mechanism.
We already have it in place eg for larger HMOs, which in many places need PP, and Landlord Licensing (an expensive mess but it exists).
Labour have it in their Kings Speech notes to create a national English DB of LLs, as Scotland already has in place.
Ultimately, landlords probably have nothing to do with the price of property, except that they allow renters without wealth to compete for housing, using their income, against households who do have wealth. Abolish private rentals and housing will certainly be more accessible for households with wealth, but much less accessible for young renters.
Imagine a large town or small city that makes the world a better place by criminalising residential tenancies. Fairly well-off families would immediately snap up properties from ex-landlords, and their kids would get rent-free housing even if they are bone idle. Aspiring young workers would get nothing and in the future they would instead move to the next town over.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Entirely seriously, I cannot conceive of hating a rival political party enough to support people quite so rude and offensive.
Manners are not everything, not even close when it comes to policy, but the vulgar, crass, insulting behaviour is just so disgraceful.
Thats's actionable. I wonder if Mr Chump will retweet it?
He's quite close (politically plus organisationally) to Laura Loomer.
Not actionable even in England and you can say what you like in the States.
Are you sure? I mean the second tweet btw.
What is the test to determine whether words published are defamatory? Must the claimant show actual harm or loss?
Most states’ defamation laws include as the elements of defamation claims: (1) a defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff that (2) is disclosed (‘published’) to at least one-third party, (3) is false, (4) is published with a degree of fault rising at least to negligence, and (5) either causes actual (or ‘special’) harm or is actionable regardless of actual harm (defamation ‘per se’).
A statement is defamatory if it tends to damage another’s reputation so as to lower her in the esteem of the community. Actual harm is not necessary to make a statement defamatory, but it may be necessary to establish liability regarding certain types of statements and to recover damages. The incremental harm doctrine may bar a plaintiff from recovering where the challenged statement causes no, or negligible, ‘incremental’ harm in the context of unchallenged statements. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=eac1a7ff-5cc0-49c8-b20d-d6fff01c018e#:~:text=Most states' defamation laws include,actual (or 'special')
Aside: Mr Chump tried saying what he wanted; recall what happened, and the defamation suits he lost.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
This suggests that Dems are moving quickly and they want a quick coronation. I doubt anyone’s going to go against Harris and the interest is really now over her VP choice .
Jack Russell, it is always little ankle biters which are the worst.
Corgis too. These little bastards are actually bred to do that.
Didn't Princess Anne's Corgi go around murdering other dogs? I had a very drunken night in a bothy in the Cairngorms and was warned about the Beast of Balmoral.
Other way round, breed-wise, on checking. Presumably the Beast of Balmoral was something other than Princess A's dug.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
If they cave in it will be their ERM ejection or illicit party cake moment.
It will also mean they get Trussified by the markets sooner rather than later.
People are willing to make sacrificies to get things turned around, but not to ladel more of their money to workshy scroungers who already get tens of thousands a year in benefits and rent paid for them.
Hmm. I really think you are over playing this one. The idea that this one policy will either destroy Starmer's Premiership or move the markets is just ludicrous.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Entirely seriously, I cannot conceive of hating a rival political party enough to support people quite so rude and offensive.
Manners are not everything, not even close when it comes to policy, but the vulgar, crass, insulting behaviour is just so disgraceful.
Straying into Andrea Leadsom territory there... "As a father" ?
The disincentive for saying this sort of thing ought to be the shunning of Senator Vance for being an oafish chump.
Which is kinda what happened to Leadsom, though she had the class to recognise her situation.
Unfortunately, oafish chumpery is on the job description to be Trump's Veep pick, and quite a few voters are cool with that.
Mr Vance is obviously not a neo-Darwinist (at least publicly) as he would otherwise know that nieces and nephews count just as well, albeit in a somewhat different scoring, ditto grandnieces and nephews. And the obvious guess is confirmed by a check on Google.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Entirely seriously, I cannot conceive of hating a rival political party enough to support people quite so rude and offensive.
Manners are not everything, not even close when it comes to policy, but the vulgar, crass, insulting behaviour is just so disgraceful.
Straying into Andrea Leadsom territory there... "As a father" ?
The disincentive for saying this sort of thing ought to be the shunning of Senator Vance for being an oafish chump.
Which is kinda what happened to Leadsom, though she had the class to recognise her situation.
Unfortunately, oafish chumpery is on the job description to be Trump's Veep pick, and quite a few voters are cool with that.
Mr Vance is obviously not a neo-Darwinist (at least publicly) as he would otherwise know that nieces and nephews count just as well, albeit in a somewhat different scoring, ditto grandnieces and nephews. And the obvious guess is confirmed by a check on Google.
This suggests that Dems are moving quickly and they want a quick coronation. I doubt anyone’s going to go against Harris and the interest is really now over her VP choice .
Cakewalk NOT Coronation.
Seeing as how succession to the throne - in this case Democratic nomination - is NOT solely a matter of the President designating his successor as nominee, but is in the hands of 3,949 pledged delegates to the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
If they cave in it will be their ERM ejection or illicit party cake moment.
It will also mean they get Trussified by the markets sooner rather than later.
People are willing to make sacrificies to get things turned around, but not to ladel more of their money to workshy scroungers who already get tens of thousands a year in benefits and rent paid for them.
Hmm. I really think you are over playing this one. The idea that this one policy will either destroy Starmer's Premiership or move the markets is just ludicrous.
Especially as a lot of the people who are potential beneficiaries *are working*. Including some folk on PB who complain a lot about its interaction with tax on their 50K-ish salary (which for the record I agree, those marginal effects are stupid).
Today in Parliament may be worth a listen for a period.
Goddamn that's a lot of money. The detail on that will be pretty fascinating.
Suspect it's based on pretending that all the civil servants working on it would have been unemployed (rather than working on other tasks) had it not happened.
Cheeky, but not lying by the standards of political discourse. And, she would argue, those 1000 civil servants - and the country - would have been better off if they were doing the other tasks.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
Imagine Donalds reaction if he gets beaten by... Kamala Harris 😂
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
The BBC managed to find some Trump voters who said it wouldn't change their vote. Tiny subsample klaxon.
Imagine a large town or small city that makes the world a better place by criminalising residential tenancies. Fairly well-off families would immediately snap up properties from ex-landlords, and their kids would get rent-free housing even if they are bone idle. Aspiring young workers would get nothing and in the future they would instead move to the next town over.
There's no reason to criminalise residential tenancies.
Just have enough construction that would-be landlords who desire to charge too high a rent or have too dilapidated a property find that nobody is interested in being a tenant as they'd rather live somewhere cheaper/better quality instead.
Its the shortage of buildings that empowers landlords to charge what they want, in whatever quality they want, as there is no alternative.
Today in Parliament may be worth a listen for a period.
Goddamn that's a lot of money. The detail on that will be pretty fascinating.
Suspect it's based on pretending that all the civil servants working on it would have been unemployed (rather than working on other tasks) had it not happened.
Cheeky, but not lying by the standards of political discourse. And, she would argue, those 1000 civil servants - and the country - would have been better off if they were doing the other tasks.
They were actually recruiting specifically to deal with the deportations. Filled a hangar with chunks of old Boeings and whatnot to teach staff how to, er, persuade the customer to get into the nice aeroplane.
Today in Parliament may be worth a listen for a period.
How much of that money did they actually spend and how much of it is down to civil service employees whos timesheet has appropriated a number of hours to the project (with all the usual overheads added), so is money that would be spent anyway?
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
Imagine Donalds reaction if he gets beaten by... Kamala Harris 😂
Note that Baby Dog's fat cat, WV Gov & coal baron Jim Justice, threatened civil unrest if Trump is (yet again) the biggest loser in 2024; without (I think) specifying to who(m).
Imagine a large town or small city that makes the world a better place by criminalising residential tenancies. Fairly well-off families would immediately snap up properties from ex-landlords, and their kids would get rent-free housing even if they are bone idle. Aspiring young workers would get nothing and in the future they would instead move to the next town over.
There's no reason to criminalise residential tenancies.
Just have enough construction that would-be landlords who desire to charge too high a rent or have too dilapidated a property find that nobody is interested in being a tenant as they'd rather live somewhere cheaper/better quality instead.
Its the shortage of buildings that empowers landlords to charge what they want, in whatever quality they want, as there is no alternative.
Just criminalise letting a tenancy while the property is mortgaged for more than 50% of its value.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
This suggests that Dems are moving quickly and they want a quick coronation. I doubt anyone’s going to go against Harris and the interest is really now over her VP choice .
Cakewalk NOT Coronation.
Seeing as how succession to the throne - in this case Democratic nomination - is NOT solely a matter of the President designating his successor as nominee, but is in the hands of 3,949 pledged delegates to the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
Imagine a large town or small city that makes the world a better place by criminalising residential tenancies. Fairly well-off families would immediately snap up properties from ex-landlords, and their kids would get rent-free housing even if they are bone idle. Aspiring young workers would get nothing and in the future they would instead move to the next town over.
There's no reason to criminalise residential tenancies.
Just have enough construction that would-be landlords who desire to charge too high a rent or have too dilapidated a property find that nobody is interested in being a tenant as they'd rather live somewhere cheaper/better quality instead.
Its the shortage of buildings that empowers landlords to charge what they want, in whatever quality they want, as there is no alternative.
Just criminalise letting a tenancy while the property is mortgaged for more than 50% of its value.
Or just have affordability checks for mortgages not take into account rental income.
Which would be reasonable if there were sufficient houses as many would-be landlords would find themselves lacking a tenant if there were enough empty homes as there should be, but the owner would still need to pay any mortgage and any taxes without any income.
Today in Parliament may be worth a listen for a period.
How much of that money did they actually spend and how much of it is down to civil service employees whos timesheet has appropriated a number of hours to the project (with all the usual overheads added), so is money that would be spent anyway?
Are you arguing, that civil service time & other resources, are NOT legitimately included in cost of ANY government program? Or just the Rwanda "plan"?
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Today in Parliament may be worth a listen for a period.
How much of that money did they actually spend and how much of it is down to civil service employees whos timesheet has appropriated a number of hours to the project (with all the usual overheads added), so is money that would be spent anyway?
We have paid 240m to Rwanda and are on the hook for at least another 130m. That's real dosh. Not opportunity cost or anything fancy like that
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
Imagine Donalds reaction if he gets beaten by... Kamala Harris 😂
Note that Baby Dog's fat cat, WV Gov & coal baron Jim Justice, threatened civil unrest if Trump is (yet again) the biggest loser in 2024; without (I think) specifying to who(m).
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
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.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
Except it's not in this case.
Interest rates collapsed in 2007 and house prices to earnings ratios didn't rise, they actually began to fall from their peaks and took years to catch back up.
Supply and demand are the problem. Demand surged in 2002 onwards due to both demographics and migration, but supply did not keep up.
We can pick this up again when you've educated yourself on how yields impact property valuation. As I say, it won't take you long. Just give me a shout.
I'm educated on how it impacts it, its part of what I studied for my Masters.
I'm also educated enough to know that it doesn't dwarf supply and demand, hence why there was for years a positive relationship between interest rates and price/earning ratios rather than an inverse one.
You acting like its the be-all and end-all of the matter is just complete nonsense. That's where you're making the mistake, its a factor on supply and demand but only a factor.
I was never saying it dwarfs lack of supply. Just that both supply and yields/rates are relevant to property prices.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Entirely seriously, I cannot conceive of hating a rival political party enough to support people quite so rude and offensive.
Manners are not everything, not even close when it comes to policy, but the vulgar, crass, insulting behaviour is just so disgraceful.
MAGA-GOP freakout over KH speaks volumes.
Similar but worse than the Keir Fear so prevalent among subset of PBers.
And this is what I dared to hope that trump and co don't have a strategy for dealing with a young black female, and go properly mad trying
Isn't that Vance quote a direct lift from Leadsom's attack on Mrs May during leadership election???
Shades of the Joe Biden cribbing Neal Kinnock scandal of 1987?
The US has elected childless Presidents before but the last one was Warren Harding who left office in 1923
Odd way of putting it.
I mean, yes, I suppose he did leave office in a sense, on account of a sudden heart attack possibly due to botched medical treatment for food poisoning, but that's not exactly how I would have phrased it.
(There's also some doubt as to whether he was actually childless, of course.)
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.
Now that should be the dynamic, but why with our rapid rate rises have prices not declined in line with the formula?
Volumes are way down - you haven’t got a willing buyer/willing seller equilibrium yet
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
Dunno but it's a pound to a penny Nigel Farage's crack team of RefUK researchers is looking into family size by ethnicity, for use when the cap is abolished. Or they might just make something up.
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.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
Except it's not in this case.
Interest rates collapsed in 2007 and house prices to earnings ratios didn't rise, they actually began to fall from their peaks and took years to catch back up.
Supply and demand are the problem. Demand surged in 2002 onwards due to both demographics and migration, but supply did not keep up.
We can pick this up again when you've educated yourself on how yields impact property valuation. As I say, it won't take you long. Just give me a shout.
I'm educated on how it impacts it, its part of what I studied for my Masters.
I'm also educated enough to know that it doesn't dwarf supply and demand, hence why there was for years a positive relationship between interest rates and price/earning ratios rather than an inverse one.
You acting like its the be-all and end-all of the matter is just complete nonsense. That's where you're making the mistake, its a factor on supply and demand but only a factor.
I was never saying it dwarfs lack of supply. Just that both supply and yields/rates are relevant to property prices.
So, hard graft but we're there. Great.
Yes, they're relevant.
But relevant as a very minor factor compared to the lack of supply and abundance of demand which is the major driving factor and the material cause of our dysfunctional market.
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.
That's the mistake in your thinking, both are consumer goods. Consumers want a roof over their head and a screen to watch shows on.
If there's sufficient construction of homes then competition exists just the same as competition exists for any other good.
Both are assets generating incomes for those who own them who want to sell them/let them, but only if consumers wish to do so - which if there's sufficient competition then consumers have other alternatives instead.
Houses are not fungible, but discrete assets.
I don’t care which unit of a TV manufacturing run I have. I do care about the house
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
And Vance's party is trying to remove access to IVF, meaning there will be more childless women and couples.
Trump will regret the day he chose Vance.
We know the Donald is ruled by whims so could he unchoose him?
I suppose he could at this moment, but once the nominations have been put to the states my understanding is that it wouldn't be possible to. And they have to start going in in the next few weeks.
Today in Parliament may be worth a listen for a period.
How much of that money did they actually spend and how much of it is down to civil service employees whos timesheet has appropriated a number of hours to the project (with all the usual overheads added), so is money that would be spent anyway?
This seems to me a strange point - what about opportunity cost?
The money spent on paying those 1000 civil servants to work on this could have been spent on paying them to do something worthwhile.
Much of the cash went to Rwanda as a fixed amount of £290m, however.
Giving a statement in the Commons, Ms Cooper said the figure of £700m included £290m of payments to Rwanda, the cost of chartering flights that never took off, detaining hundreds of people and then releasing them, as well as paying for more than 1,000 civil servants to work on the scheme.
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.
Yes. Here’s my theory on Joe Biden’s ‘journey’, see what you think.
He did intend to be a one term president - a ‘bridge’ - but this changed when Donald Trump came back into play as the likely GOP nominee. Having beaten him once, he considered himself (correctly at that point) the safest bet to do so again. Conscious of the threat Trump posed to the US and the wider world Biden now felt duty bound to run for a second term.
As his health deteriorated, he got kind of locked in and the situation became self-fuelling. At some point the ‘management’ of his frailties became a deception, including of himself, and the ‘duty’ started to look more like prideful stubborness, fed by his close circle. At the eleventh hour he mustered the humility and wisdom to do the right (albeit belated) thing. He’d become the opponent Trump wanted rather than feared and he realized this. Although informed by health factors it was primarily a political not a medical decision.
Just wanted to acknowledge that you've consistently said it won't be Biden for nominee, and I consistently said you were wrong!
Cheers 🙂
But only one thing matters now. That she WINS. I think she will.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
And here we go. The rolling back. The education secretary is now saying the govt will consider this. It is no longer a no. The lobbying looks like being successful even though the policy is overwhelmingly supported.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
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.
That's the mistake in your thinking, both are consumer goods. Consumers want a roof over their head and a screen to watch shows on.
If there's sufficient construction of homes then competition exists just the same as competition exists for any other good.
Both are assets generating incomes for those who own them who want to sell them/let them, but only if consumers wish to do so - which if there's sufficient competition then consumers have other alternatives instead.
Houses are not fungible, but discrete assets.
I don’t care which unit of a TV manufacturing run I have. I do care about the house
You may not care which unit of TV, or phone, or tablet, or computer, or car you have but many do.
And many don't care what house they have, they just want any house.
Indeed many use websites like Rightmove etc to look at different housing options precisely because they are fungible.
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.
That's the mistake in your thinking, both are consumer goods. Consumers want a roof over their head and a screen to watch shows on.
If there's sufficient construction of homes then competition exists just the same as competition exists for any other good.
Both are assets generating incomes for those who own them who want to sell them/let them, but only if consumers wish to do so - which if there's sufficient competition then consumers have other alternatives instead.
Houses are not fungible, but discrete assets.
I don’t care which unit of a TV manufacturing run I have. I do care about the house
Of course if Labour blow up the economy and interest rates have to rise sharply to enable them to prop up the £ and sell gilts, then we will end up with net emigration, lowering demand, as well as the price being ludicrously unaffordable.
Maybe that is what is needed. A great reset. Not going to be much fun though.
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.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
Except it's not in this case.
Interest rates collapsed in 2007 and house prices to earnings ratios didn't rise, they actually began to fall from their peaks and took years to catch back up.
Supply and demand are the problem. Demand surged in 2002 onwards due to both demographics and migration, but supply did not keep up.
We can pick this up again when you've educated yourself on how yields impact property valuation. As I say, it won't take you long. Just give me a shout.
I'm educated on how it impacts it, its part of what I studied for my Masters.
I'm also educated enough to know that it doesn't dwarf supply and demand, hence why there was for years a positive relationship between interest rates and price/earning ratios rather than an inverse one.
You acting like its the be-all and end-all of the matter is just complete nonsense. That's where you're making the mistake, its a factor on supply and demand but only a factor.
I was never saying it dwarfs lack of supply. Just that both supply and yields/rates are relevant to property prices.
So, hard graft but we're there. Great.
Yes, they're relevant.
But relevant as a very minor factor compared to the lack of supply and abundance of demand which is the major driving factor and the material cause of our dysfunctional market.
Yields are not a 'very minor' factor in property valuation. They are a material factor.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Today in Parliament may be worth a listen for a period.
How much of that money did they actually spend and how much of it is down to civil service employees whos timesheet has appropriated a number of hours to the project (with all the usual overheads added), so is money that would be spent anyway?
We have paid 240m to Rwanda and are on the hook for at least another 130m. That's real dosh. Not opportunity cost or anything fancy like 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.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
Except it's not in this case.
Interest rates collapsed in 2007 and house prices to earnings ratios didn't rise, they actually began to fall from their peaks and took years to catch back up.
Supply and demand are the problem. Demand surged in 2002 onwards due to both demographics and migration, but supply did not keep up.
We can pick this up again when you've educated yourself on how yields impact property valuation. As I say, it won't take you long. Just give me a shout.
I'm educated on how it impacts it, its part of what I studied for my Masters.
I'm also educated enough to know that it doesn't dwarf supply and demand, hence why there was for years a positive relationship between interest rates and price/earning ratios rather than an inverse one.
You acting like its the be-all and end-all of the matter is just complete nonsense. That's where you're making the mistake, its a factor on supply and demand but only a factor.
I was never saying it dwarfs lack of supply. Just that both supply and yields/rates are relevant to property prices.
So, hard graft but we're there. Great.
Yes, they're relevant.
But relevant as a very minor factor compared to the lack of supply and abundance of demand which is the major driving factor and the material cause of our dysfunctional market.
Yields are not a 'very minor' factor in property valuation. They are a material factor.
A very minor one factor may still a material factor, yes.
However its still very minor.
Supply and demand is the major factor utterly dwarfing yields as a factor.
Today in Parliament may be worth a listen for a period.
How much of that money did they actually spend and how much of it is down to civil service employees whos timesheet has appropriated a number of hours to the project (with all the usual overheads added), so is money that would be spent anyway?
We have paid 240m to Rwanda and are on the hook for at least another 130m. That's real dosh. Not opportunity cost or anything fancy like that
It's around 4% of Rwanda's GDP.
Nice work if you can get it. Compare Panama which makes over 90% of its money from the canal
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
And Vance's party is trying to remove access to IVF, meaning there will be more childless women and couples.
Trump will regret the day he chose Vance.
We know the Donald is ruled by whims so could he unchoose him?
I suppose he could at this moment, but once the nominations have been put to the states my understanding is that it wouldn't be possible to. And they have to start going in in the next few weeks.
That's the cat lady vote lost then.
Wait until Vance finds out there's tens of thousands of them in swing state Pennsylvania.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
Out of interest, when did he say it?
When he was running for Senate in 2022, Vance said the following about Kamala Harris and other female Democrats holding elective office:
"We're effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via the corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too. It's just a basic fact. You have Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. How does that make any sense when we've turned our country over to people who don't have a direct stake in it." https://meidasnews.com/news/vance-calls-harris-a-miserable-childless-cat-lady
There is a linked video of Vance saying it on American telly.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
And Vance's party is trying to remove access to IVF, meaning there will be more childless women and couples.
Trump will regret the day he chose Vance.
We know the Donald is ruled by whims so could he unchoose him?
I suppose he could at this moment, but once the nominations have been put to the states my understanding is that it wouldn't be possible to. And they have to start going in in the next few weeks.
See my previous post on this.
As for point you raise re: state ballot deadlines, note that general election voters will be voting NOT (directly) for the candidates listed for POTUS and VP on each ticket, but rather for Electors. Who are free (effectively) to vote for ANYBODY.
So IF the RN Committee named someone other than JD Vance for VP, at DJT's request, the Trump electors (legitimate ones that is) would almost certainly vote that way.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
And here we go. The rolling back. The education secretary is now saying the govt will consider this. It is no longer a no. The lobbying looks like being successful even though the policy is overwhelmingly supported.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
They were strongly against it when it came in, and before the election, said many times that if they had the money they'd look at abolishing it.
It's never been a "no", it's always been about the money, and many commentators said before the election that it may even go in the very first budget.
Comments
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
Now, we might disagree that that will happen in the Harris case, but the point I raised did not say that it would. In fact I don't expect to see a big change. I said status changes can result in changes.
Indeed, that I don't expect a big change for Harris and yet you appear to assume I did despite me not saying as much raises interesting questions about your rather emotive reaction to the possibility.
Maybe consistent but in the real 24/7 news cycle and events opinions change and rapidly
If I was in the Trump camp I would be far more worried today then before Biden stood down
Indeed I expect Harris will be the next POTUS
Who is the better model for society?
It will also mean they get Trussified by the markets sooner rather than later.
People are willing to make sacrificies to get things turned around, but not to ladel more of their money to workshy scroungers who already get tens of thousands a year in benefits and rent paid for them.
Desperate
deleted
If I was in the Trump camp I would be far more worried today then before Biden stood down
Indeed I expect Harris will be the next POTUS
I’m sure you’re right. We oldies must stick together!
Particularly since the accusation is about a lack of direct stake in the country (we'll ignore that's an idiotic idea for a moment), yet someone who does either of the above clearly does have a stake.
So do any step mums have a stake? Those who have been so since a very young age for the child only? None?
If I was in the Trump camp I would be far more worried today then before Biden stood down
Indeed I expect Harris will be the next POTUS
There is definitely a hint of fear in the Trump campaign. It may not last as they solidify their attack lines etc but it is a little refreshing to see considering how complacent they have been getting of late.
If necessary that could be regulated via a modified Change of Use mechanism.
We already have it in place eg for larger HMOs, which in many places need PP, and Landlord Licensing (an expensive mess but it exists).
Labour have it in their Kings Speech notes to create a national English DB of LLs, as Scotland already has in place.
"Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ
NEW POST. Why Kamala Harris would be a DISASTER. Here's why I think Trump would defeat Harris, easily
https://mattgoodwin.org/p/why-kamala-harris-would-be-a-disaster"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1815332381265408375
Scarecrows for scale
He's quite close (politically plus organisationally) to Laura Loomer.
Starmer calls Sunak 'prime minister' in Commons slip-up
Sir Keir Starmer joked that "old habits die hard" as he appeared to give the leader of the opposition his old job back.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/ckkgrw3lwp1o
What is the test to determine whether words published are defamatory? Must the claimant show actual harm or loss?
Most states’ defamation laws include as the elements of defamation claims: (1) a defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff that (2) is disclosed (‘published’) to at least one-third party, (3) is false, (4) is published with a degree of fault rising at least to negligence, and (5) either causes actual (or ‘special’) harm or is actionable regardless of actual harm (defamation ‘per se’).
A statement is defamatory if it tends to damage another’s reputation so as to lower her in the esteem of the community. Actual harm is not necessary to make a statement defamatory, but it may be necessary to establish liability regarding certain types of statements and to recover damages. The incremental harm doctrine may bar a plaintiff from recovering where the challenged statement causes no, or negligible, ‘incremental’ harm in the context of unchallenged statements.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=eac1a7ff-5cc0-49c8-b20d-d6fff01c018e#:~:text=Most states' defamation laws include,actual (or 'special')
Aside: Mr Chump tried saying what he wanted; recall what happened, and the defamation suits he lost.
This suggests that Dems are moving quickly and they want a quick coronation. I doubt anyone’s going to go against Harris and the interest is really now over her VP choice .
Tories spent £700m on Rwanda scheme, Cooper says
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1rw47l2xxgo
Today in Parliament may be worth a listen for a period.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3345585.stm
At least ankle-biting isn't immediately fatal.
Your connection is not private
Attackers might be trying to steal your information from mattgoodwin.org (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more
SSI - along with click-button saying - "Back to Safety"!
Which is kinda what happened to Leadsom, though she had the class to recognise her situation.
Unfortunately, oafish chumpery is on the job description to be Trump's Veep pick, and quite a few voters are cool with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovi_raayD44
A BMW signalling a turn.
https://x.com/WorldBollard/status/1813992569904537918
(It is alleged that this may be CGI.)
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/kamala-harris-tell-grand-niece-president-74068919
Edit: And, I see from others: she also has step-children.
“Look, if they if they do the polling and it turns out that they need a 49-year-old, bald and gay Jew from Boulder, Colorado, they got my number.”
https://x.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1815427842588450988
Not a racist slur with a typo
Seeing as how succession to the throne - in this case Democratic nomination - is NOT solely a matter of the President designating his successor as nominee, but is in the hands of 3,949 pledged delegates to the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_National_Convention
OPINION: I strongly believe a woman—a Black woman—can become president of the United States. I just don’t believe Kamala Harris can.
https://x.com/thedailybeast/status/1815356016202043767
Cheeky, but not lying by the standards of political discourse. And, she would argue, those 1000 civil servants - and the country - would have been better off if they were doing the other tasks.
Tiny subsample klaxon.
Just have enough construction that would-be landlords who desire to charge too high a rent or have too dilapidated a property find that nobody is interested in being a tenant as they'd rather live somewhere cheaper/better quality instead.
Its the shortage of buildings that empowers landlords to charge what they want, in whatever quality they want, as there is no alternative.
Politicians lie. What did you expect him to say?
PALANTIR CROWD CAUGHT FLAT-FOOTED AFTER FAILING TO IMAGINE SOMEONE WILLING TO TOSS THE RING OF POWER INTO MOUNT DOOM
https://x.com/generativist/status/1815116066512896423
Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611
Which would be reasonable if there were sufficient houses as many would-be landlords would find themselves lacking a tenant if there were enough empty homes as there should be, but the owner would still need to pay any mortgage and any taxes without any income.
Kamala Harris lacks charisma and time
But, if nominated, that does not rule out her defeating Donald Trump"
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/07/22/kamala-harris-lacks-charisma-and-time
Ohio state Sen. George Lang at JD Vance’s rally: “I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country.”
https://x.com/AccountableGOP/status/1815434837567643696
So, hard graft but we're there. Great.
I mean, yes, I suppose he did leave office in a sense, on account of a sudden heart attack possibly due to botched medical treatment for food poisoning, but that's not exactly how I would have phrased it.
(There's also some doubt as to whether he was actually childless, of course.)
But relevant as a very minor factor compared to the lack of supply and abundance of demand which is the major driving factor and the material cause of our dysfunctional market.
I don’t care which unit of a TV manufacturing run I have. I do care about the house
The money spent on paying those 1000 civil servants to work on this could have been spent on paying them to do something worthwhile.
Much of the cash went to Rwanda as a fixed amount of £290m, however.
Giving a statement in the Commons, Ms Cooper said the figure of £700m included £290m of payments to Rwanda, the cost of chartering flights that never took off, detaining hundreds of people and then releasing them, as well as paying for more than 1,000 civil servants to work on the scheme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1rw47l2xxgo#:~:text=Giving a statement in the,to work on the scheme.
But only one thing matters now. That she WINS. I think she will.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
And many don't care what house they have, they just want any house.
Indeed many use websites like Rightmove etc to look at different housing options precisely because they are fungible.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conserative-voters-age-next-general-election-b2583660.html
Tories planning to name a new leader in November
Nominations expected to open on Wednesday with a ‘beauty parade’ of final four contenders at party conference in September before members vote on final two
https://www.thetimes.com/article/tories-planning-to-name-a-new-leader-in-november-tnn8nb5p5 (£££)
Maybe that is what is needed. A great reset. Not going to be much fun though.
However, would be VERY counterproductive. Just conduct a seance and ask George McGovern, Thomas Eagleton AND Sargent Shriver . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection
However its still very minor.
Supply and demand is the major factor utterly dwarfing yields as a factor.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
Wait until Vance finds out there's tens of thousands of them in swing state Pennsylvania.
"We're effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via the corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too. It's just a basic fact. You have Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. How does that make any sense when we've turned our country over to people who don't have a direct stake in it."
https://meidasnews.com/news/vance-calls-harris-a-miserable-childless-cat-lady
There is a linked video of Vance saying it on American telly.
England played a pretty bad WI side who collapsed twice in two games. England really run the risk of over-analysing a pretty easy win.
As for point you raise re: state ballot deadlines, note that general election voters will be voting NOT (directly) for the candidates listed for POTUS and VP on each ticket, but rather for Electors. Who are free (effectively) to vote for ANYBODY.
So IF the RN Committee named someone other than JD Vance for VP, at DJT's request, the Trump electors (legitimate ones that is) would almost certainly vote that way.
It's never been a "no", it's always been about the money, and many commentators said before the election that it may even go in the very first budget.