The suspect has been known to authorities 'for similar acts' in the past, a prosecutor said
Still desperately trying to prove far right conspiracy theories correct? Why? Why is it so important to you for far right conspiracy theories to be correct?
Which conspiracy? As I asked you earlier, is a conspiracy being alleged or a pattern?
As I said earlier, yes, a conspiracy is being alleged.
As I asked you earlier, why is it so important to you for far right conspiracy theories to be correct?
I now very little about the case really and certainly not enough to make any judgement one way or the other. But if there is an argument being made by reasonable and informed people that there might have been a miscarriage of justice then I would hope you would accept that it is right that such arguments should be heard and considered properly. This is apoint of principle not a judgement on this specific instance.
We know miscarriages of justice occur. We hear about the high profile ones on a regular basis and I am certain there will be lots of low profile ones as well that we never get to hear about. As such we should not simply dismiss such claims on the basis that the court has said so and that is the end of it. If that were the case then there would be lots of innocent people still in jail. And of course the system recognises this which is why we have a court of appeal.
And the Court of Appeal considered her appeal case and rejected it.
There have been plenty of cases where that has occured and they later turned out to be wrong.
But as I said my point is not that I think they are wrong in this case. It is just arguing against those - like CR from what I have read here - who seem to take offence that Letby's supporters won't just roll over and surrender. They may be wrong and they may be deluded but that does not mean they don't have the right to continue to proclaim her possible innocence and to use the system to its fullest extent to try and overturn what they perceive to be an injustice. Why do people take this as some sort of personal affront?
People who think she is innocent can go on saying that, sure. They can use the system to its fullest extent to try to overturn what they believe is an injustice. They can and they are doing that.
Why do people take this as some sort of affront? Well, it’s a case that has attracted international interest. That attracts comment from both sides of a debate, as Pagan2 put it. And this is PB. We’d debate whether to open an egg from the big end or the little end.
Here is a thought for those that go social housing is the answer from someone that rents
It is not the answer for most renters for the simple reason we know most of us will get the privilege to pay for it while never having a chance of reaching the point where we will ever be eligible to get social housing. For most of us we sign up on the queue but every year actually find ourselves further away from the top of the list because people keep being inserted above us rather than having an end in sight we have an ever receding target.
I think the people saying social housing is the answer are proposing a plan where the amount of social housing is greatly increased, at which point you would get to the top of the list.
LMAO you think they are going to build a over a million social housing homes? Current stats are 1.29 million households waiting and last year it increased by 5%. You need therefore to build around 62k a year purely as social housing. That is 40% of all homes built last year
And why is that such an outlandish idea? If the issue is people getting on the housing ladder in the first place then what is the point of continually building 4 and 5 bedroom executive houses?
As an idea to fix things it is absolutely right it would. I am merely saying I can't see how you take the idea and turn it into reality. As I pointed out using 250k as a reasonable estimate of the cost of building a social home....just to stay still you need to build 62k homes a year which will cost 15.5 billion a year. What tax do you want to raise? What service do you want to cut?
You don’t have to get there in one leap. More social housing would be a good thing, even on a smaller scale.
It’s an investment. In the long run, the state saves money on paying expensive rents with housing benefit.
I get depressed by the ignorance of literature shown by contestants on quiz shows. Yesterday on BBC's "Pointless" contests were asked to name a word of 4 letters or more that appears in the title of any novel by George Eliot, Jane Austen or any of the Brontes. One woman couldn't name a single one so ended up guessing incorrectly.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
I agree, but the incentives are truly plentiful anyway. Extra incentives aren't needed for the wealthy. Of course the nutty PA claw back at £100k causes a huge number of additional pension contributions, but if that anomaly was sorted it would disappear.
Yes. If you fixed the 100k cliff edge you’d fix a lot of problems in the system.
I would suggest fixing the cliff edge coming welcome would benefit 100x more people and bring more into full time work than fixing a cliffedge for the 1%
No idea what 'the cliff edge coming welcome' is but I take your point about just 1% being bothered about the 100k cliff edge.
Perhaps more people should be bothered about it, because it encourages behaviours that don’t benefit the exchequer.
Not much. And certainly not to the extent that "If you fixed the 100k cliff edge you’d fix a lot of problems in the system".
Equalising the tax on earned and unearned income would have much more benefit.
And as Pagan pointed out, reducing the 55% marginal UC 'tax' would impact a a lot more people.
It wouldn't surprise me if Rachel brings in a little 5% extra tax on interest and rental income...
Me neither. In fact, I'd be disappointed if she doesn't.
You want rents to go up by 5%?
Good point. I'd freeze rents too. Allow them to increase by CPI each year.
Then welcome to less homes to rent and those that are left becoming more neglected that is what happened last time we had rent controls
If you want affordable rents then the solution is to build more houses.
If there were enough houses then would-be landlords should face a choice of letting out a home for a lower rent, or having no tenant and paying all bills on the home themselves with no income coming in.
In a free market rents should be considerably cheaper than a mortgage. If a tenant can afford to pay the landlord's mortgage they should be able to pay their own and cut out the middle man.
I'm not sure about that. Rent has to cover maintenance costs as well as mortgage costs. So in an efficient market I'd expect the total cost of home ownership - mortgage and maintenance - to be about equal to rental costs. And so that means that rent > mortgage.
Rents are inflated versus mortgages because, if you're on low pay you can get UC help with rent but not with a mortgage.
Which can be rewritten as the government spends tens of billions to subsidise landlords through inflated rents.
Which is totally true but also a difficult situation to end without making hb claimaints unable to rent property at all
Again what will landlords do with flats and houses if we stop subsidising the rent with tens of billions? They will rent them out at whatever fair market value is, largely to the same people. If they sell them that is fine too as we want more owner occupiers.
It is an easy area of government spending to cut back on, it is over 10% of the total welfare budget.
They don’t have to rent them out. Avoid the hassle and just stick with the appreciation in value.
Nah, might be an idea for prime London. The idea anyone is going to buy a 2 or 3 bed terrace in a city and just sit on a void property is comical.
I live in prime London. It does colour my perspective.
I get depressed by the ignorance of literature shown by contestants on quiz shows. Yesterday on BBC's "Pointless" contests were asked to name a word of 4 letters or more that appears in the title of any novel by George Eliot, Jane Austen or any of the Brontes. One woman couldn't name a single one so ended up guessing incorrectly.
There probably is ignorance but also I imagine it’s very easy to freeze on a quiz show. I’m a general knowledge geek and I also accept that whilst I’m answering mastermind quicker than most contestants I’m also sitting on my arse under no pressure.
it must be really easy to overthink as well and believe that the answer can’t be as easy as what you have teed up in your brain.
I get depressed by the ignorance of literature shown by contestants on quiz shows. Yesterday on BBC's "Pointless" contests were asked to name a word of 4 letters or more that appears in the title of any novel by George Eliot, Jane Austen or any of the Brontes. One woman couldn't name a single one so ended up guessing incorrectly.
I get depressed by the ignorance of literature shown by contestants on quiz shows. Yesterday on BBC's "Pointless" contests were asked to name a word of 4 letters or more that appears in the title of any novel by George Eliot, Jane Austen or any of the Brontes. One woman couldn't name a single one so ended up guessing incorrectly.
Quiz shows can be very unfair. I've read most of the output of those people (and apparently am distantly related to Eliot...), but off the top of my head in a few seconds I could only come up with Middlemarch, Wuthering Heights, Pride and Prejudice, Emma, the Mill on the Floss.
I'm guessing 'mill' or 'floss' are the least likely words to be said there, and I doubt they'd be pointless.
As I type, I think of Silas Marner, Jayne Eyre, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, Sense and Sensibility, Emma, Northanger Park. But that's after a couple of minutes.
Much of the skill in these quiz shows is being able to cope with a studio environment. Pointless is also interesting as you have to find *obscure* answers, and I find my mind gets stuck on variations of the obvious answers.
I now very little about the case really and certainly not enough to make any judgement one way or the other. But if there is an argument being made by reasonable and informed people that there might have been a miscarriage of justice then I would hope you would accept that it is right that such arguments should be heard and considered properly. This is apoint of principle not a judgement on this specific instance.
We know miscarriages of justice occur. We hear about the high profile ones on a regular basis and I am certain there will be lots of low profile ones as well that we never get to hear about. As such we should not simply dismiss such claims on the basis that the court has said so and that is the end of it. If that were the case then there would be lots of innocent people still in jail. And of course the system recognises this which is why we have a court of appeal.
And the Court of Appeal considered her appeal case and rejected it.
There have been plenty of cases where that has occured and they later turned out to be wrong.
But as I said my point is not that I think they are wrong in this case. It is just arguing against those - like CR from what I have read here - who seem to take offence that Letby's supporters won't just roll over and surrender. They may be wrong and they may be deluded but that does not mean they don't have the right to continue to proclaim her possible innocence and to use the system to its fullest extent to try and overturn what they perceive to be an injustice. Why do people take this as some sort of personal affront?
People who think she is innocent can go on saying that, sure. They can use the system to its fullest extent to try to overturn what they believe is an injustice. They can and they are doing that.
Why do people take this as some sort of affront? Well, it’s a case that has attracted international interest. That attracts comment from both sides of a debate, as Pagan2 put it. And this is PB. We’d debate whether to open an egg from the big end or the little end.
I suppose that the reason that the Letby cause has been taken up with such enthusiasm in some quarters is more to do with undermining of our institutions rather than concern for somebody that they have never met. If the State is evil then she must be a victim of that evil.
Currently reading Tushnet's A Court Divided, an accessible read about the Rehnquist era Supreme Court.
A fascinating read in view of the developments of the following two decades. Also required reading for those who erroneously believe that 'judicial activism' is the preserve of liberal justices.
Will Vance come to the same conclusion, before, or after the election ?
That's actually quite an old clip, so RaT are being rather disingenuous in saying 'breaking.' Also, since Pence has consistently refused to endorse Trump since January 2020 it's hardly 'news.'
As for Vance, the answer's 'no.'
The Vance question was simply asking how soon it would be before Trump turned his followers on him.
I get depressed by the ignorance of literature shown by contestants on quiz shows. Yesterday on BBC's "Pointless" contests were asked to name a word of 4 letters or more that appears in the title of any novel by George Eliot, Jane Austen or any of the Brontes. One woman couldn't name a single one so ended up guessing incorrectly.
One of the ideas I like most in Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series is that in the world he has created, literature and art are regarded by the public as being as important as, for example, football in our world. There are underground movements fighting for Christopher Marlow to be recognised as the true author of Shakespeare's plays and Abstract Expressionism is a banned organisation.
That seems to me to be a coherent position. And also one I agree with. Scrapping for all except those on benefits seems to me too extreme. But a proper system of means testing with a reasonable cut off does seem appropriate. It is something I would apply to all benefits including the 'middle class' ones like Child Benefit.
I would scrap Winter Fuel Payment entirely on grounds of efficiency and if necessary adjust Pension Credit, which is the means by which older people with inadequate pensions get topped up. You might decide other poorer people, not just the old, struggle with fuel bills and adjust Universal Credit. This might not save any money compared with the status quo but it has the benefit of being a lot more equitable.
In short Winter Fuel Payment is an indefensible benefit in its previous form and Reeves, Starmer and previously Badenoch were correct in wanting to change it. Perhaps they didn't handle the politics particularly well but they are right on the principle.
I get depressed by the ignorance of literature shown by contestants on quiz shows. Yesterday on BBC's "Pointless" contests were asked to name a word of 4 letters or more that appears in the title of any novel by George Eliot, Jane Austen or any of the Brontes. One woman couldn't name a single one so ended up guessing incorrectly.
One of the ideas I like most in Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series is that in the world he has created, literature and art are regarded by the public as being as important as, for example, football in our world. There are underground movements fighting for Christopher Marlow to be recognised as the true author of Shakespeare's plays and Abstract Expressionism is a banned organisation.
I get depressed by the ignorance of literature shown by contestants on quiz shows. Yesterday on BBC's "Pointless" contests were asked to name a word of 4 letters or more that appears in the title of any novel by George Eliot, Jane Austen or any of the Brontes. One woman couldn't name a single one so ended up guessing incorrectly.
There probably is ignorance but also I imagine it’s very easy to freeze on a quiz show. I’m a general knowledge geek and I also accept that whilst I’m answering mastermind quicker than most contestants I’m also sitting on my arse under no pressure.
it must be really easy to overthink as well and believe that the answer can’t be as easy as what you have teed up in your brain.
I accept this point but the contestant had managed to get through the first round OK. It is a general feature of this show that contestants dread any literature questions and do badly. The contestant with a good knowledge of literature seems to be the exception.
Well, hello North Carolina. We have a voter reg update. In week 15 this year (July 21st), the total number of registrants was almost 50% higher than it was during the same week in 2020 (17,178 to 12,426). https://x.com/tbonier/status/1831139736477430080
Interesting, particularly as Biden didn't announce he was stepping down until the 21st.
I get depressed by the ignorance of literature shown by contestants on quiz shows. Yesterday on BBC's "Pointless" contests were asked to name a word of 4 letters or more that appears in the title of any novel by George Eliot, Jane Austen or any of the Brontes. One woman couldn't name a single one so ended up guessing incorrectly.
Quiz shows can be very unfair. I've read most of the output of those people (and apparently am distantly related to Eliot...), but off the top of my head in a few seconds I could only come up with Middlemarch, Wuthering Heights, Pride and Prejudice, Emma, the Mill on the Floss.
I'm guessing 'mill' or 'floss' are the least likely words to be said there, and I doubt they'd be pointless.
As I type, I think of Silas Marner, Jayne Eyre, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, Sense and Sensibility, Emma, Northanger Park. But that's after a couple of minutes.
Much of the skill in these quiz shows is being able to cope with a studio environment. Pointless is also interesting as you have to find *obscure* answers, and I find my mind gets stuck on variations of the obvious answers.
I'm pretty sure I'd tank a quiz show in a hot studio environment under the spotlight in a way I wouldn't in my own living room.
I now very little about the case really and certainly not enough to make any judgement one way or the other. But if there is an argument being made by reasonable and informed people that there might have been a miscarriage of justice then I would hope you would accept that it is right that such arguments should be heard and considered properly. This is apoint of principle not a judgement on this specific instance.
We know miscarriages of justice occur. We hear about the high profile ones on a regular basis and I am certain there will be lots of low profile ones as well that we never get to hear about. As such we should not simply dismiss such claims on the basis that the court has said so and that is the end of it. If that were the case then there would be lots of innocent people still in jail. And of course the system recognises this which is why we have a court of appeal.
Knowing nothing about the case, this feels like a well funded and well connected fashionable campaign rather than a real case of misjustice
On the raccoon trail. Not that we saw any; just squirrels, chipmunks, and some unusual looking birds. The posted advice on how to fight off bears and lions at the beginning of the trail proved superfluous. Does Colorado actually have wild lions?
Mountain lions, yes, and other large wild cats like bobcats.
I like your dog. Your dog makes me happy. And provides scale. And is therefore multifunctional.
I remain unconvinced by a dog for scale, I see dogs like chihuaha's and dogs like great dane's around. Unless you know the normal size for the breed it can make a difference
What if the Great Dane is really far away?
In time or distance?
Are we talking Cnut or Helle Thorning-Schmidt here?
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
I agree, but the incentives are truly plentiful anyway. Extra incentives aren't needed for the wealthy. Of course the nutty PA claw back at £100k causes a huge number of additional pension contributions, but if that anomaly was sorted it would disappear.
Yes. If you fixed the 100k cliff edge you’d fix a lot of problems in the system.
I would suggest fixing the cliff edge coming welcome would benefit 100x more people and bring more into full time work than fixing a cliffedge for the 1%
No idea what 'the cliff edge coming welcome' is but I take your point about just 1% being bothered about the 100k cliff edge.
Perhaps more people should be bothered about it, because it encourages behaviours that don’t benefit the exchequer.
Not much. And certainly not to the extent that "If you fixed the 100k cliff edge you’d fix a lot of problems in the system".
Equalising the tax on earned and unearned income would have much more benefit.
And as Pagan pointed out, reducing the 55% marginal UC 'tax' would impact a a lot more people.
It wouldn't surprise me if Rachel brings in a little 5% extra tax on interest and rental income...
Me neither. In fact, I'd be disappointed if she doesn't.
You want rents to go up by 5%?
Good point. I'd freeze rents too. Allow them to increase by CPI each year.
Then welcome to less homes to rent and those that are left becoming more neglected that is what happened last time we had rent controls
If you want affordable rents then the solution is to build more houses.
If there were enough houses then would-be landlords should face a choice of letting out a home for a lower rent, or having no tenant and paying all bills on the home themselves with no income coming in.
In a free market rents should be considerably cheaper than a mortgage. If a tenant can afford to pay the landlord's mortgage they should be able to pay their own and cut out the middle man.
I'm not sure about that. Rent has to cover maintenance costs as well as mortgage costs. So in an efficient market I'd expect the total cost of home ownership - mortgage and maintenance - to be about equal to rental costs. And so that means that rent > mortgage.
Rents are inflated versus mortgages because, if you're on low pay you can get UC help with rent but not with a mortgage.
In an efficient market rent should be the value of the mortgage interest on the whole value of the property plus maintenance. Apparently home maintenance is 1% per year and of course 100% i/o mortgages are not offered but looking at SVRs and lifetime mortgages perhaps 6% or thereabouts would be right in today's market. So for each £100,000 of value £583/ month would be fair perhaps. In practice since houses tend to go up in value the cheapest houses go for higher yields than more expensive ones
In an efficient market anyone who can afford to pay a landlords mortgage would pay their own instead.
Rent should be more than maintenance costs but less than a mortgage. As it is in cities and countries without broken housing markets with very restricted supplies.
You keep stating this as fact but it’s not true.
Japan has a very specific housing market with houses that are designed to be temporary and replaceable.
In the US, for example, it is very unusual to have an “upside down” mortgage where the mortgage cost is higher than the rent.
Fundamentally what you are missing is that most landlords don’t have the ability to fund the negative spread of rent being less than the mortgage + maintenance cost. So the market clearing price is above that. (@Pulpstar is right in theory but in practice housing is not fungible so there is a positive spread)
Plus any failed claimants who rock up on a dinghy can be easily returned as their claim would have already been heard.
No, it is entirely self interested by the French. They would shift all of their migrants to Calais and encourage them to apply for asylum in the UK instead of France.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/04/specieswatch-no-sting-in-the-tail-to-the-pest-munching-book-scorpion
As I asked you earlier, why is it so important to you for far right conspiracy theories to be correct?
Why do people take this as some sort of affront? Well, it’s a case that has attracted international interest. That attracts comment from both sides of a debate, as Pagan2 put it. And this is PB. We’d debate whether to open an egg from the big end or the little end.
It’s an investment. In the long run, the state saves money on paying expensive rents with housing benefit.
it must be really easy to overthink as well and believe that the answer can’t be as easy as what you have teed up in your brain.
I'm guessing 'mill' or 'floss' are the least likely words to be said there, and I doubt they'd be pointless.
As I type, I think of Silas Marner, Jayne Eyre, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, Sense and Sensibility, Emma, Northanger Park. But that's after a couple of minutes.
Much of the skill in these quiz shows is being able to cope with a studio environment. Pointless is also interesting as you have to find *obscure* answers, and I find my mind gets stuck on variations of the obvious answers.
A fascinating read in view of the developments of the following two decades.
Also required reading for those who erroneously believe that 'judicial activism' is the preserve of liberal justices.
In short Winter Fuel Payment is an indefensible benefit in its previous form and Reeves, Starmer and previously Badenoch were correct in wanting to change it. Perhaps they didn't handle the politics particularly well but they are right on the principle.
NEW THREAD
https://x.com/tbonier/status/1831139736477430080
Interesting, particularly as Biden didn't announce he was stepping down until the 21st.
The margin in 2020 was less than 75k votes.
Pressure.
Are we talking Cnut or Helle Thorning-Schmidt here?
Japan has a very specific housing market with houses that are designed to be temporary and replaceable.
In the US, for example, it is very unusual to have an “upside down” mortgage where the mortgage cost is higher than the rent.
Fundamentally what you are missing is that most landlords don’t have the ability to fund the negative spread of rent being less than the mortgage + maintenance cost. So the market clearing price is above that. (@Pulpstar is right in theory but in practice housing is not fungible so there is a positive spread)