The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Nuanced. Good one.
Just admit it, he's batshit. Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?
What's your point?
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Again you show your naivety. You say his rhetoric is absurd but it isn't in the context of attempting to appeal to a particular type of US voter. Of which there are millions. Why is trying to appeal to millions of voters whose votes you want "absurd".
What particular insight do you have on your hypothesis that this is a conscious attempt to ‘appeal to a particular type of US voter’ rather than just Trump being incapable of doing anything other than poop out whatever happens to be floating through his cerebral cortex?
Do you agree with the regularly aired idea that any non batshit GOP candidate (eg Haley) would be romping towards the White House atm?
Haley probably would be, provided Trump hadn't gone third party if she had only narrowly beaten him in the primaries
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food is
1) has the child had breakfast 2) is the child getting lunch
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.
Yes - schools should keep pupils until six pm and feed them three meals per day. Not only does it ensure all kids get fed well but it gives time for activities or homework in place rather than in a chaotic home environment, it allows more parents to work full time which is good for them and the economy and reduces the chances of children getting into trouble where they leave school in the afternoon and wait for a few hours until parents get home.
The extra cost of staffing and feeding would be worth it for the results. I’m completely guessing that last statement.
Before 2019 - God it was a stretch. Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, one of us would have to drop the kids off at breakfast club, and the other leave work bang on 5 to get home for pick up from after school club. There was absolutely no slack in the day whatsoever and very little room for flexibility. And every day like that cost us £45 (£5 per child for breakfast club, £10 per child for after school club). If it was hard for us with our middle class incomes and our accommodating employers, how does it work for others? It just doesn't, I guess. Nowadays we a) largely work from home and b) the kids are older so need much less managing, and I often look back with wonder that we got through it at all.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Labour donor urges the party of government to stop schools having to serve (some) meat and instead serve food that coincides with his personal ethics and business interests: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crejwrypryyo
It’s striking how often peoples’ ethical values coincide with their business interests.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
For individuals maybe, for couples not
Good morning
The problem is that it feeds into maintaining high prices and puts the borrowers at risk of negative equity if the market falls, which by the way happened in the 2008 crisis
Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food is
1) has the child had breakfast 2) is the child getting lunch
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.
I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.
No the Vatican city and Andorra too. Indeed the Vatican city head of state is a cleric, the Pope.
As a Whig and Radical Liberal non Tory no surprise to see you wanting to remove the bishops and remaining hereditaries from the Lords. As a proper Tory though I of course want to keep both.
Starmer though had a manifesto commitment only to remove the remaining hereditary peers as they are mostly Tories. He will keep the diocesan bishops in the Lords, not least as they supported Labour in opposing the last Conservative government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers. Indeed there was no commitment to any elected element of the upper house in the Labour manifesto at all
Which part of micro state do you not understand?
The bishops in the House of Lords serve a vital role.
Carrying the mission of the CoE into politics.
That is, the removal of religion from public discourse. And it's replacement by weak cups of tea and vague niceness.
If the Bishops are removed from the Lords, they might be replaced by people who believe in God or something dangerous like that.
Justin Welby isn't *vaguely nice*. He's a guilt-ridden buffoon who has bought a job-lot of Guardianista opinions to atone for his previous life and cannot now be bothered to think through the logical consequences from good intentions to the road to hell.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.
From the BBC article about it
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.
Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food is
1) has the child had breakfast 2) is the child getting lunch
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.
Provide beds too and you’ve got a boarding school.
Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food is
1) has the child had breakfast 2) is the child getting lunch
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.
Supervised by whom?
Staff. Paid for with money. Which will need to be found.
The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Nuanced. Good one.
Just admit it, he's batshit. Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?
What's your point?
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food is
1) has the child had breakfast 2) is the child getting lunch
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
Labour donor urges the party of government to stop schools having to serve (some) meat and instead serve food that coincides with his personal ethics and business interests: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crejwrypryyo
It’s striking how often peoples’ ethical values coincide with their business interests.
I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.
No the Vatican city and Andorra too. Indeed the Vatican city head of state is a cleric, the Pope.
As a Whig and Radical Liberal non Tory no surprise to see you wanting to remove the bishops and remaining hereditaries from the Lords. As a proper Tory though I of course want to keep both.
Starmer though had a manifesto commitment only to remove the remaining hereditary peers as they are mostly Tories. He will keep the diocesan bishops in the Lords, not least as they supported Labour in opposing the last Conservative government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers. Indeed there was no commitment to any elected element of the upper house in the Labour manifesto at all
Which part of micro state do you not understand?
The bishops in the House of Lords serve a vital role.
Carrying the mission of the CoE into politics.
That is, the removal of religion from public discourse. And it's replacement by weak cups of tea and vague niceness.
If the Bishops are removed from the Lords, they might be replaced by people who believe in God or something dangerous like that.
And, lest we forget, the world would be an awful lot better than it is if there were more vague niceness about.
Yes let's have some managed decline (aka an embrace of realism) in an atmosphere of vague niceness.
I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.
No the Vatican city and Andorra too. Indeed the Vatican city head of state is a cleric, the Pope.
As a Whig and Radical Liberal non Tory no surprise to see you wanting to remove the bishops and remaining hereditaries from the Lords. As a proper Tory though I of course want to keep both.
Starmer though had a manifesto commitment only to remove the remaining hereditary peers as they are mostly Tories. He will keep the diocesan bishops in the Lords, not least as they supported Labour in opposing the last Conservative government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers. Indeed there was no commitment to any elected element of the upper house in the Labour manifesto at all
Which part of micro state do you not understand?
The bishops in the House of Lords serve a vital role.
Carrying the mission of the CoE into politics.
That is, the removal of religion from public discourse. And it's replacement by weak cups of tea and vague niceness.
If the Bishops are removed from the Lords, they might be replaced by people who believe in God or something dangerous like that.
Justin Welby isn't *vaguely nice*. He's a guilt-ridden buffoon who has bought a job-lot of Guardianista opinions to atone for his previous life and cannot now be bothered to think through the logical consequences from good intentions to the road to hell.
That’s the alternative view.
It is quite impressive the way he is running the CoE into the ground.
When he leaves his job, I understand there are a number of former Boeing execs, with the moral value of Paula Vennells, looking for a role?
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
You probably deserve a non rhetorical reply to that (and apologies for hijacking the thread with the Trump spat). Crime figures are almost always problematic and disputed - we see the same thing here. But the murder rate is pretty consistently reported, and hard to manipulate.
I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.
Starmer is about the only person unappealing enough to make hereditary peers and archbishops popular just by virtue of opposing them.
The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Nuanced. Good one.
Just admit it, he's batshit. Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?
What's your point?
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Again you show your naivety. You say his rhetoric is absurd but it isn't in the context of attempting to appeal to a particular type of US voter. Of which there are millions. Why is trying to appeal to millions of voters whose votes you want "absurd".
This is the quote we are talking about:
Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion."
If he is trying to appeal to women already in the cult, then it probably works but why do that if they are already committed?
If he is trying to appeal to uncommitted women, I'll hazard a guess that it won't work. Just a guess that most non-follower women will find his remark creepy, absurd even.
It’s pretty classic controlling partner language.
I’m an unwoke bloke. That language is all red flags to me. Run away from the dangerous asshole, ladies.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
1. They spend a decade paying off someone else's home loan 2. Laws start to change to balance things out between landlords and renters 3. Landlords decide to sell if they can't exploit 4. Establishment allow buyers to increase debt pushing up the property prices 5. Landlords get the extra multiple of salary as a windfall on sale 6. Buyers are supposed to feel grateful for taking on extra debt
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !
Yup. So you have, in effect, doubled the redundancy risk to the mortgage. As a start.
Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food is
1) has the child had breakfast 2) is the child getting lunch
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.
Provide beds too and you’ve got a boarding school.
Our local 'private' school has a sign outside "What if every night could be a sleepover?"
I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
This year's County Championship finishes on 29th September. That's getting very late, and all to make space for The Hundred, which only vaguely resembles cricket.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
This year's County Championship finishes on 29th September. That's getting very late, and all to make space for The Hundred, which only vaguely resembles cricket.
It is rather bleak up here ahead of the ODI at the Riverside today. At least yesterdays heavy rain has abated.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !
Hey, but at least they have a Barratt box over their heads...
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
This year's County Championship finishes on 29th September. That's getting very late, and all to make space for The Hundred, which only vaguely resembles cricket.
There is no reason why the Championship cannot play alongside the hundred. Yes Counties might lose a few players, but actually there are intended to be many overseas stars in the hundred, and it would test the depths of the championships squads a little.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.
Surely the fixture at the most northerly ODI ground in the country should be scheduled prior to the autumnal equinox .
Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food is
1) has the child had breakfast 2) is the child getting lunch
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.
Supervised by whom?
Surely one for teaching assistants ?
Ignoring the cost for the moment, I think it's a good idea. All schools, or just primaries?
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !
That was the position my wife and I were in when we bought our first house in 1990. I was a 2nd year teacher earning 750 after tax etc. our mortgage and insurance was identical. Loan was 76000. Happy days...
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !
Yup. So you have, in effect, doubled the redundancy risk to the mortgage. As a start.
I think the rate ends up being £1350 or so looking at the nationwide calculator and the 35 year mortgage you would be starting with.
I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
You keep on ignoring that repeatedly SKS declares gifts late, and it looks as though Rayner has (at best) incorrectly declared them.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.
Technically yes, but with a 12.30 start, if it goes the distance, given slow over rates, the second innings won't start until around 4.30-5 - an 8pm or even later finish is quite likely. They'll know this and I suspect the floodlights will be on for all the second innings.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !
Well the point is there are two earners, so their take-home is £1772.58 x 2, right? (I assume your calculations are right). So they take home £3545.16 a month of which just under half goes on a mortgage.
What's the problem? They'd probably pay that in rent (if not more).
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !
That was the position my wife and I were in when we bought our first house in 1990. I was a 2nd year teacher earning 750 after tax etc. our mortgage and insurance was identical. Loan was 76000. Happy days...
I'm not sure the start of the 90s is a model to replicate at historically benign/average (Albeit a bit higher than a few years back) BoE rates
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !
Yup. So you have, in effect, doubled the redundancy risk to the mortgage. As a start.
Hmmm. A 50k pa household is ~1/3 below two national average salaries, so in those terms is something like 30% income percentile - approximately and ignoring all kinds of factors.
I wonder if shared-ownership is due for a return?
Nationwide current Standard Rate is 7.74%, but they are offering eg 5 year fixed rates down to just over 4% on remortgages, and 10 year fixed rates at 4.7%. Some deals a little below that.
I make that a 2-3% Fizzy Lizzy and current circumstances premium.
Much will depend on the escape-to-switch cost.
From my day job, LLs will have a 2% LANDLORD !!!! premium over that.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
Apply it to UK government tax income of £0.83tr gives a borrowing figure of £5tr. We're only half way there at £2.7tr. Plenty of headroom.
The normal rule of thumb is that a household should try not to spend more than one-third of their income on rent/mortgage payments.
Do you really think it would be sensible for one-third of government tax revenue to be spent on servicing the national debt? What spending would you cut to afford the extra £bns of debt interest payments?
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.
From the BBC article about it
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry about
I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.
No the Vatican city and Andorra too. Indeed the Vatican city head of state is a cleric, the Pope.
As a Whig and Radical Liberal non Tory no surprise to see you wanting to remove the bishops and remaining hereditaries from the Lords. As a proper Tory though I of course want to keep both.
Starmer though had a manifesto commitment only to remove the remaining hereditary peers as they are mostly Tories. He will keep the diocesan bishops in the Lords, not least as they supported Labour in opposing the last Conservative government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers. Indeed there was no commitment to any elected element of the upper house in the Labour manifesto at all
Which part of micro state do you not understand?
The bishops in the House of Lords serve a vital role.
Carrying the mission of the CoE into politics.
That is, the removal of religion from public discourse. And it's replacement by weak cups of tea and vague niceness.
If the Bishops are removed from the Lords, they might be replaced by people who believe in God or something dangerous like that.
Justin Welby isn't *vaguely nice*. He's a guilt-ridden buffoon who has bought a job-lot of Guardianista opinions to atone for his previous life and cannot now be bothered to think through the logical consequences from good intentions to the road to hell.
That’s the alternative view.
It is quite impressive the way he is running the CoE into the ground.
When he leaves his job, I understand there are a number of former Boeing execs, with the moral value of Paula Vennells, looking for a role?
When evangelical Welby goes he will almost certainly be replaced by an Anglo Catholic on the usual rotation and they tend to be more intellectual and theologian eg Rowan Williams and Robert Runcie
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !
That was the position my wife and I were in when we bought our first house in 1990. I was a 2nd year teacher earning 750 after tax etc. our mortgage and insurance was identical. Loan was 76000. Happy days...
I'm not sure the start of the 90s is a model to replicate at historically benign/average (Albeit a bit higher than a few years back) BoE rates
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.
From the BBC article about it
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry about
If she did it now would you support her being fined £1,000 and reprimanded?
The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Nuanced. Good one.
Just admit it, he's batshit. Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?
What's your point?
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
Except that's not what you replied to. My post was in response to Sandpit saying Trump was being "nuanced". In that context, your reply was nonsense.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
Was it at a 6* multiple of your and your wife's salary though :E ?
This news is happy days for existing homeowners as Nationwide is basically expanding the money supply for houses - which will push prices up . The only country madder than us with it's housing is Australia and their -ve gearing I think.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
For individuals maybe, for couples not
Good morning
The problem is that it feeds into maintaining high prices and puts the borrowers at risk of negative equity if the market falls, which by the way happened in the 2008 crisis
It is more a risk for the bank or building society lending a la 2008, at worst even if they could no longer afford repayments the borrowing couple would have built up some capital in it when sold in most cases rather than just renting. Negative equity only would occur if a massive slump in house prices
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.
Technically yes, but with a 12.30 start, if it goes the distance, given slow over rates, the second innings won't start until around 4.30-5 - an 8pm or even later finish is quite likely. They'll know this and I suspect the floodlights will be on for all the second innings.
Pre-supposes England can post any sort of total....
I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
You keep on ignoring that repeatedly SKS declares gifts late, and it looks as though Rayner has (at best) incorrectly declared them.
Sort your own side out.
Again – AGAIN! – you (deliberately?) misrepresent me. It's a good idea to check someone's posts before you accuse them of hypocrisy or deliberate omission. I have literally said – time and again on here – that Sir Keir made an error by declaring Lady Vic's clothing allowance late. I wrote that many times without prompting from you or anyone else.
He did declare that when he realised his mistake and – crucially – before there was any media interest, but yes it was late nevertheless.
But I have written that numerous times. Can't you read?
The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Nuanced. Good one.
Just admit it, he's batshit. Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?
What's your point?
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
Except that's not what you replied to. My post was in response to Sandpit saying Trump was being "nuanced". In that context, your reply was nonsense.
You said his comments were batshit. Is what I was replying to.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
Was it at a 6* multiple of your and your wife's salary though :E ?
This news is happy days for existing homeowners as Nationwide is basically expanding the money supply for houses - which will push prices up . The only country madder than us with it's housing is Australia and their -ve gearing I think.
Truth be told I can't remember what we were making in those days. I think it might have been 4-5 times our salaries but that's just a guess TBH.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
If renting they would be in same position , as long as they have a deposit
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start. Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.
Technically yes, but with a 12.30 start, if it goes the distance, given slow over rates, the second innings won't start until around 4.30-5 - an 8pm or even later finish is quite likely. They'll know this and I suspect the floodlights will be on for all the second innings.
Pre-supposes England can post any sort of total....
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Nuanced. Good one.
Just admit it, he's batshit. Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?
What's your point?
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
But you didn't 'call' Nigel on it.
Nigel report something that Trump said, suggesting it was Batshit. You replied saying 'are you new to political rhetoric?'
Now the inference I took from that was that you were suggesting this is just the sort of things politicians say. I suggested it was outside the bounds of that. To which you hinted at other examples of mad things that Trump has said. Which only means it's not outside the bounds of normality *for Trump*, not that it's not outside the bounds of normal political rhetoric.
Perhaps what you meant was 'are you new to Donald Trump's political rhetoric'?
If your point is that Trump says a lot of things and that some American voters are quite receptive to it, then yes I agree with you. But the implication of what you said was that Trumpian political rhetoric is just normal political rhetoric.
But as I say, perhaps you just missed the words "Donald Trump's" out of "are you new to political rhetoric?"
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
So says 'Lost Password', the geezer on the internet. And, he's probably got a point. But a young couple who want their own home aren't going to worry too much about 'the economy' are they? They just want their own home that they can paint and furnish and start a life together, without paying some chiselling landlord even more in rent each month to do fuck-all (but moan when they put some shelves up).
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
When we bought our first house, in 1963, I paid the mortgage out of my salary, and my wife stayed at home to look after things there, including our first child. And I wasn't earning a fortune; I was running a small suburban pharmacy.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
Apply it to UK government tax income of £0.83tr gives a borrowing figure of £5tr. We're only half way there at £2.7tr. Plenty of headroom.
The normal rule of thumb is that a household should try not to spend more than one-third of their income on rent/mortgage payments.
Do you really think it would be sensible for one-third of government tax revenue to be spent on servicing the national debt? What spending would you cut to afford the extra £bns of debt interest payments?
The key thing is the size of the deficit - that is, the extra debt taken on in the year - vs the rate of GDP growth. If one equals the other then our debt to GDP ratio stays the same.
Remember this is nominal GDP growth. Ie before stripping out inflation. Current nominal growth is about 4.5%.
You borrow ideally to fund growth. It then all depends on whether an extra 1% of borrowing each year will drive more or less than an extra 1% of nominal GDP growth.
I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
You keep on ignoring that repeatedly SKS declares gifts late, and it looks as though Rayner has (at best) incorrectly declared them.
Sort your own side out.
Again – AGAIN! – you (deliberately?) misrepresent me. It's a good idea to check someone's posts before you accuse them of hypocrisy or deliberate omission. I have literally said – time and again on here – that Sir Keir made an error by declaring Lady Vic's clothing allowance late. I wrote that many times without prompting from you or anyone else.
He did declare that when he realised his mistake and – crucially – before there was any media interest, but yes it was late nevertheless.
But I have written that numerous times. Can't you read?
It is completely and wilfully missing the point to suggest that this is an argument about procedure, and that whether Keir followed 'procedure' or slipped up on it is the substantive issue. It isn't, and it is disingenuous in the extreme of Sir Sponger to suggest that he went after Boris over procedure - he went after him because it looked like Boris was for sale, just like it now appears that SKS is for sale. This story is also about one individual, and the power they clearly weild at the heart of Government, which they have bought. Whether or not it was declared is immaterial - every system can be stretched and abused, and the reason why things need to be declared is so that the public can see when that point has been reached.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.
From the BBC article about it
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry about
If she did it now would you support her being fined £1,000 and reprimanded?
Nope, Bollox political correctness by some arseholes. These c!owns need to get a life rather than pick little snippets of history they don't like.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
That's a matter for the lender(s). I'm saying that if I were part of a young couple in those circumstances, I'd almost certainly go for it. Who can blame them? It's a better deal for them than renting.
The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Nuanced. Good one.
Just admit it, he's batshit. Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?
What's your point?
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
But you didn't 'call' Nigel on it.
Nigel report something that Trump said, suggesting it was Batshit. You replied saying 'are you new to political rhetoric?'
Now the inference I took from that was that you were suggesting this is just the sort of things politicians say. I suggested it was outside the bounds of that. To which you hinted at other examples of mad things that Trump has said. Which only means it's not outside the bounds of normality *for Trump*, not that it's not outside the bounds of normal political rhetoric.
Perhaps what you meant was 'are you new to Donald Trump's political rhetoric'?
If your point is that Trump says a lot of things and that some American voters are quite receptive to it, then yes I agree with you. But the implication of what you said was that Trumpian political rhetoric is just normal political rhetoric.
But as I say, perhaps you just missed the words "Donald Trump's" out of "are you new to political rhetoric?"
Robert Colvile @rcolvile Tweeted this yesterday and then a load of people pointed out they do have a problem with the gifts themselves, because MPs legislated/regulated to ban huge swathes of workers like them from accepting such gifts, due to the risk of corruption. Which is a fair point.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 2h ‘It is deeply wrong for a banker/civil servant to accept dinner from a client but my Taylor Swift tickets are just fine’ does have a certain inconsistency.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.
From the BBC article about it
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry about
If she did it now would you support her being fined £1,000 and reprimanded?
Nope, Bollox political correctness by some arseholes. These c!owns need to get a life rather than pick little snippets of history they don't like.
So an England cricketer should be free to attend parties in blackface?
I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
You keep on ignoring that repeatedly SKS declares gifts late, and it looks as though Rayner has (at best) incorrectly declared them.
Sort your own side out.
Again – AGAIN! – you (deliberately?) misrepresent me. It's a good idea to check someone's posts before you accuse them of hypocrisy or deliberate omission. I have literally said – time and again on here – that Sir Keir made an error by declaring Lady Vic's clothing allowance late. I wrote that many times without prompting from you or anyone else.
He did declare that when he realised his mistake and – crucially – before there was any media interest, but yes it was late nevertheless.
But I have written that numerous times. Can't you read?
It is completely and wilfully missing the point to suggest that this is an argument about procedure, and that whether Keir followed 'procedure' or slipped up on it is the substantive issue. It isn't, and it is disingenuous in the extreme of Sir Sponger to suggest that he went after Boris over procedure - he went after him because it looked like Boris was for sale, just like it now appears that SKS is for sale. This story is also about one individual, and the power they clearly weild at the heart of Government, which they have bought. Whether or not it was declared is immaterial - every system can be stretched and abused, and the reason why things need to be declared is so that the public can see when that point has been reached.
That's your argument, fair enough.
My point was with the increasingly underhand Josias deliberately misrepresenting me: some might call it lying – but I'm more charitable that that.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile Tweeted this yesterday and then a load of people pointed out they do have a problem with the gifts themselves, because MPs legislated/regulated to ban huge swathes of workers like them from accepting such gifts, due to the risk of corruption. Which is a fair point.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 2h ‘It is deeply wrong for a banker/civil servant to accept dinner from a client but my Taylor Swift tickets are just fine’ does have a certain inconsistency.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.
From the BBC article about it
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry about
If she did it now would you support her being fined £1,000 and reprimanded?
Nope, Bollox political correctness by some arseholes. These c!owns need to get a life rather than pick little snippets of history they don't like.
So an England cricketer should be free to attend parties in blackface?
It would be bad taste for sure but what are the woke police after next, ban knights because of the crusades, or ban English uniforms because of all the murders in the highland clearances and on and on. Selective banning by a few sanctimonious arse holes is not a good sign
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
That's a matter for the lender(s). I'm saying that if I were part of a young couple in those circumstances, I'd almost certainly go for it. Who can blame them? It's a better deal for them than renting.
It's good for the lender in the short term (More money lent = more customers, more income) and good for the couple (Can get on the ladder) - but it creates major issues and systemic risk long term as @Malmesbury and @LostPassword have pointed out. The next lever I guess that banks might pull is never actually worrying about the capital of a mortgage to be paid off for owner occupiers once a certain LTV is reached (This might already be the case, it's something I personally won't be looking at when I remortgage shortly though !)
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their lives
It is indeed easy to take democracy for granted, and the danger can be closer to home than we might like to think.
It isn't so long, for instance, that a large chunk of the political nation refused to accept the outcome of the largest democratic vote in this country's history and did everything they could to frustrate it - incidentally often the same people who get sanctimonious about the dismal Trump's awful refusal to accept the results of the last American election, and including our current Prime Minister.
Either one is a democrat or one isn't. The test is whether one accepts the results of votes one doesn't like.
Fantasy.
All the dissembling was done in the House of Commons. There should be a clue in there for even the most challenged political analysts.
Not true at all. Anti-democratic attempts to frustrate the expressed will of the people did take place in the Commons, but also in the Lords, the courts, in Europe and on the streets.
From 2016-2019 our claim to be a democracy was in serious danger and only the smashing Conservative victory at the end of 2019 rescued it (and also incidentally saw off the Loony Left for a while at least).
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their lives
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their lives
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?
What exactly is being said with blackface. I suppose it is that black people are, in and of themselves, comic objects or objects of derision. Plus the juxtaposition of someone white being something they're not.
But why is that inherently a) funny; or b) insulting.
If she had turned up as Viv Richards would that have been better or worse? What about Thor or the Black Panther.
I think the convention is that it is insulting and I am happy to go along with that but it probably needs some unpicking.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their lives
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgage
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their lives
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgage
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.
Totally. Agree but greed and thick politicians make it unlikely unfortunately
What exactly is being said with blackface. I suppose it is that black people are, in and of themselves, comic objects or objects of derision. Plus the juxtaposition of someone white being something they're not.
But why is that inherently a) funny; or b) insulting.
If she had turned up as Viv Richards would that have been better or worse? What about Thor or the Black Panther.
I think the convention is that it is insulting and I am happy to go along with that but it probably needs some unpicking.
Topping, for me issue is how selective they are on what is and is not insulting, decided by some total arsehole
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their lives
Alternatively build a few million more houses, so that they depreciate over time and become more affordable.
Which is absolutely the last thing anyone jumping onto a 6x mortgage today wants to happen in the future.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their lives
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgage
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.
What level of house building would be required to drop prices by a third?
What exactly is being said with blackface. I suppose it is that black people are, in and of themselves, comic objects or objects of derision. Plus the juxtaposition of someone white being something they're not.
But why is that inherently a) funny; or b) insulting.
If she had turned up as Viv Richards would that have been better or worse? What about Thor or the Black Panther.
I think the convention is that it is insulting and I am happy to go along with that but it probably needs some unpicking.
Quite. A party entitled "Come as your favourite cricketer" would seem that dressing as Sir Viv, putting on make up to try to look like him ought to be reasonable. As would be a black cricketer adopting white make up and a huge beard to be WG Grace.
If the person is pretending to be black as an insult its a different thing.
Culture moves on and what is generally accepted moves on. I am not a fan of judging historical events and people by the mores of today, be that an 18th C trader whose portfolio included the triangular trade or a cricketer at a party 10 years ago.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
So says 'Lost Password', the geezer on the internet. And, he's probably got a point. But a young couple who want their own home aren't going to worry too much about 'the economy' are they? They just want their own home that they can paint and furnish and start a life together, without paying some chiselling landlord even more in rent each month to do fuck-all (but moan when they put some shelves up).
I'm a real person too, also looking to buy a house in the near future. There's no need to be unpleasant about this to me.
If house prices were one-third lower the putative couple could buy their house with mortgage repayments less than one-third of their income and they'd have more money leftover for other parts of the economy.
Same with lower rents.
I'm not saying the couple are wrong to take Nationwide up on their offer, but that, as a society, Britain has gone seriously wrong that it is necessary for them to do so.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their lives
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgage
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.
What level of house building would be required to drop prices by a third?
Depends. If the government decides to prop up prices through banks, housing benefit and help to buy style measure its probably impossible to build enough. Remove/reduce that price support, return it to more of a free market and it would be achievable.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
Apply it to UK government tax income of £0.83tr gives a borrowing figure of £5tr. We're only half way there at £2.7tr. Plenty of headroom.
The normal rule of thumb is that a household should try not to spend more than one-third of their income on rent/mortgage payments.
Do you really think it would be sensible for one-third of government tax revenue to be spent on servicing the national debt? What spending would you cut to afford the extra £bns of debt interest payments?
The key thing is the size of the deficit - that is, the extra debt taken on in the year - vs the rate of GDP growth. If one equals the other then our debt to GDP ratio stays the same.
Remember this is nominal GDP growth. Ie before stripping out inflation. Current nominal growth is about 4.5%.
You borrow ideally to fund growth. It then all depends on whether an extra 1% of borrowing each year will drive more or less than an extra 1% of nominal GDP growth.
A country also needs to have headroom to borrow in crisis situations - war, pandemic, etc - so when there isn't a crisis situation then debt-to-GDP needs to fall so that it can borrow an extra 20-30% of GDP when bird flu starts human-to-human transmission, or whatever.
Ideally debt as a percentage of GDP will be below 80% (or lower) and heading down before the next big crisis hits.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their lives
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgage
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.
What level of house building would be required to drop prices by a third?
Depends. If the government decides to prop up prices through banks, housing benefit and help to buy style measure its probably impossible to build enough. Remove/reduce that price support, return it to more of a free market and it would be achievable.
Well we can't afford to pay out the amount we are currently spending on housing benefit so something needs to give..,
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
So says 'Lost Password', the geezer on the internet. And, he's probably got a point. But a young couple who want their own home aren't going to worry too much about 'the economy' are they? They just want their own home that they can paint and furnish and start a life together, without paying some chiselling landlord even more in rent each month to do fuck-all (but moan when they put some shelves up).
I'm a real person too, also looking to buy a house in the near future. There's no need to be unpleasant about this to me.
If house prices were one-third lower the putative couple could buy their house with mortgage repayments less than one-third of their income and they'd have more money leftover for other parts of the economy.
Same with lower rents.
I'm not saying the couple are wrong to take Nationwide up on their offer, but that, as a society, Britain has gone seriously wrong that it is necessary for them to do so.
So you understand my point?
My first mortgage cost me about that as a percentage of my salary. It soon reduced as my pay went up.
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
For individuals maybe, for couples not
Good morning
The problem is that it feeds into maintaining high prices and puts the borrowers at risk of negative equity if the market falls, which by the way happened in the 2008 crisis
It is more a risk for the bank or building society lending a la 2008, at worst even if they could no longer afford repayments the borrowing couple would have built up some capital in it when sold in most cases rather than just renting. Negative equity only would occur if a massive slump in house prices
Negative equity occured betweeen 1991 - 1996 and 2007 - 2009 and it destroyed peoples lives
I witnessed a young couple thrown out of their home onto their front garden as the bailiffs repossed it for the building society and it remains strong in my memory 30 years later
We live in a volatile world where wars and the climate crisis are occurring and nobody can predict what may happen to interest rates and recessions going forward
Encouraging reckless lending is irresponsible and I have seen the trauma caused
Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loan
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
So says 'Lost Password', the geezer on the internet. And, he's probably got a point. But a young couple who want their own home aren't going to worry too much about 'the economy' are they? They just want their own home that they can paint and furnish and start a life together, without paying some chiselling landlord even more in rent each month to do fuck-all (but moan when they put some shelves up).
I'm a real person too, also looking to buy a house in the near future. There's no need to be unpleasant about this to me.
If house prices were one-third lower the putative couple could buy their house with mortgage repayments less than one-third of their income and they'd have more money leftover for other parts of the economy.
Same with lower rents.
I'm not saying the couple are wrong to take Nationwide up on their offer, but that, as a society, Britain has gone seriously wrong that it is necessary for them to do so.
So you understand my point?
My first mortgage cost me about that as a percentage of my salary. It soon reduced as my pay went up.
Well yes, but this point isn't often made: we're in a world now where salaries don't go up like they once did. High interest rates were bad for getting on the property ladder, but the high inflation which went with them was good once you were there.
What exactly is being said with blackface. I suppose it is that black people are, in and of themselves, comic objects or objects of derision. Plus the juxtaposition of someone white being something they're not.
But why is that inherently a) funny; or b) insulting.
If she had turned up as Viv Richards would that have been better or worse? What about Thor or the Black Panther.
I think the convention is that it is insulting and I am happy to go along with that but it probably needs some unpicking.
Not like you to miss the obvious parallel with drag queens which are on the other side of the partisan divide when it comes to acceptability.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile Tweeted this yesterday and then a load of people pointed out they do have a problem with the gifts themselves, because MPs legislated/regulated to ban huge swathes of workers like them from accepting such gifts, due to the risk of corruption. Which is a fair point.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 2h ‘It is deeply wrong for a banker/civil servant to accept dinner from a client but my Taylor Swift tickets are just fine’ does have a certain inconsistency.
Interesting. This shows the strength of the notion of "fairness" which did for Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng.
We know "gifts" to senior politicians have bene going on for years but now it's reached the limit of public acceptance just as proposals for cutting taxes for the very wealthy did a couple of years ago.
People want a level playing field and are tired of the "one rule for us, one rule for you" style of public life. Making politicans have the same rules as senior civil servants seems a way forward. If you want to go to a Taylor Swift concert, fine, pay for a ticket like everyone else. If you get an invite to go to Doncaster Races, fine, but declare it and ensure there's a transparent and accountable line.
Governing fairly is goign to be the challenge going forward - NOT having policies overtly favouring the people who voted for you or who support you and indeed being prepared to have policies which antagonise those groups in order to achieve something positive for the whole country.
Comments
Nowadays we a) largely work from home and b) the kids are older so need much less managing, and I often look back with wonder that we got through it at all.
The problem is that it feeds into maintaining high prices and puts the borrowers at risk of negative equity if the market falls, which by the way happened in the 2008 crisis
Frankly it is irresponsible lending
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/subprime-mortgage-crisis/#:~:text=The subprime mortgage crisis was,to the global financial system.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
I have a moral duty to sell you some CDO^3
It is quite impressive the way he is running the CoE into the ground.
When he leaves his job, I understand there are a number of former Boeing execs, with the moral value of Paula Vennells, looking for a role?
Crime figures are almost always problematic and disputed - we see the same thing here.
But the murder rate is pretty consistently reported, and hard to manipulate.
It was unchanged last year in San Francisco (and fell slightly, nationally)
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/crime-2023-trends-san-francisco-18585737.php
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
2. Laws start to change to balance things out between landlords and renters
3. Landlords decide to sell if they can't exploit
4. Establishment allow buyers to increase debt pushing up the property prices
5. Landlords get the extra multiple of salary as a windfall on sale
6. Buyers are supposed to feel grateful for taking on extra debt
Yes it is absolute madness.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
Happy days...
Sort your own side out.
What's the problem? They'd probably pay that in rent (if not more).
I wonder if shared-ownership is due for a return?
Nationwide current Standard Rate is 7.74%, but they are offering eg 5 year fixed rates down to just over 4% on remortgages, and 10 year fixed rates at 4.7%. Some deals a little below that.
I make that a 2-3% Fizzy Lizzy and current circumstances premium.
Much will depend on the escape-to-switch cost.
From my day job, LLs will have a 2% LANDLORD !!!! premium over that.
Do you really think it would be sensible for one-third of government tax revenue to be spent on servicing the national debt? What spending would you cut to afford the extra £bns of debt interest payments?
My post was in response to Sandpit saying Trump was being "nuanced". In that context, your reply was nonsense.
This news is happy days for existing homeowners as Nationwide is basically expanding the money supply for houses - which will push prices up
could no longer afford repayments the
borrowing couple would have
built up some capital in it
when sold in most cases rather than just renting. Negative equity only would occur if a massive slump in house prices
He did declare that when he realised his mistake and – crucially – before there was any media interest, but yes it was late nevertheless.
But I have written that numerous times. Can't you read?
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
Nigel report something that Trump said, suggesting it was Batshit.
You replied saying 'are you new to political rhetoric?'
Now the inference I took from that was that you were suggesting this is just the sort of things politicians say. I suggested it was outside the bounds of that. To which you hinted at other examples of mad things that Trump has said. Which only means it's not outside the bounds of normality *for Trump*, not that it's not outside the bounds of normal political rhetoric.
Perhaps what you meant was 'are you new to Donald Trump's political rhetoric'?
If your point is that Trump says a lot of things and that some American voters are quite receptive to it, then yes I agree with you. But the implication of what you said was that Trumpian political rhetoric is just normal political rhetoric.
But as I say, perhaps you just missed the words "Donald Trump's" out of "are you new to political rhetoric?"
Remember this is nominal GDP growth. Ie before stripping out inflation. Current nominal growth is about 4.5%.
You borrow ideally to fund growth. It then all depends on whether an extra 1% of borrowing each year will drive more or less than an extra 1% of nominal GDP growth.
Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
Tweeted this yesterday and then a load of people pointed out they do have a problem with the gifts themselves, because MPs legislated/regulated to ban huge swathes of workers like them from accepting such gifts, due to the risk of corruption. Which is a fair point.
Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
·
2h
‘It is deeply wrong for a banker/civil servant to accept dinner from a client but my Taylor Swift tickets are just fine’ does have a certain inconsistency.
https://x.com/rcolvile/status/1838468580234383710
My point was with the increasingly underhand Josias deliberately misrepresenting me: some might call it lying – but I'm more charitable that that.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
The next lever I guess that banks might pull is never actually worrying about the capital of a mortgage to be paid off for owner occupiers once a certain LTV is reached (This might already be the case, it's something I personally won't be looking at when I remortgage shortly though !)
From 2016-2019 our claim to be a democracy was in serious danger and only the smashing Conservative victory at the end of 2019 rescued it (and also incidentally saw off the Loony Left for a while at least).
But why is that inherently a) funny; or b) insulting.
If she had turned up as Viv Richards would that have been better or worse? What about Thor or the Black Panther.
I think the convention is that it is insulting and I am happy to go along with that but it probably needs some unpicking.
Which is absolutely the last thing anyone jumping onto a 6x mortgage today wants to happen in the future.
If the person is pretending to be black as an insult its a different thing.
Culture moves on and what is generally accepted moves on. I am not a fan of judging historical events and people by the mores of today, be that an 18th C trader whose portfolio included the triangular trade or a cricketer at a party 10 years ago.
If house prices were one-third lower the putative couple could buy their house with mortgage repayments less than one-third of their income and they'd have more money leftover for other parts of the economy.
Same with lower rents.
I'm not saying the couple are wrong to take Nationwide up on their offer, but that, as a society, Britain has gone seriously wrong that it is necessary for them to do so.
So you understand my point?
Ideally debt as a percentage of GDP will be below 80% (or lower) and heading down before the next big crisis hits.
I witnessed a young couple thrown out of their home onto their front garden as the bailiffs repossed it for the building society and it remains strong in my memory 30 years later
We live in a volatile world where wars and the climate crisis are occurring and nobody can predict what may happen to interest rates and recessions going forward
Encouraging reckless lending is irresponsible and I have seen the trauma caused
We know "gifts" to senior politicians have bene going on for years but now it's reached the limit of public acceptance just as proposals for cutting taxes for the very wealthy did a couple of years ago.
People want a level playing field and are tired of the "one rule for us, one rule for you" style of public life. Making politicans have the same rules as senior civil servants seems a way forward. If you want to go to a Taylor Swift concert, fine, pay for a ticket like everyone else. If you get an invite to go to Doncaster Races, fine, but declare it and ensure there's a transparent and accountable line.
Governing fairly is goign to be the challenge going forward - NOT having policies overtly favouring the people who voted for you or who support you and indeed being prepared to have policies which antagonise those groups in order to achieve something positive for the whole country.