"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
Christ on a bike! #Follow the paper trail from where it started.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
Tell that to the banks refusing £500 pm mortgages to people paying £1000 pm rent.
How does a private motor finance company impact the public finances?
Serious question.
By being entitled to buy cars VAT free. 20% of all new cars now don't have VAT collected on them. In addition, when motability sells the car on to a dealer after 3 years, VAT is only charged on the profit the dealer makes, as normal.
This, of course, is how motability leases are cheap: it's not so much bulk buying power as getting a 20% head start on depreciation power.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
Tell that to the banks refusing £500 pm mortgages to people paying £1000 pm rent.
And the reason banks are turning down such business is the risk models for what happens if interest rates return to historic levels.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
Delays to the processing are thankfully coming down with the new government.
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
Delays to the processing are thankfully coming down with the new government.
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
Where will you put them, so that the locals are happy *and* the various legal issues are satisfied?
The rude, crude fact, is that nowhere in Europe or vaguely near will take such a facility.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
Tell that to the banks refusing £500 pm mortgages to people paying £1000 pm rent.
And the reason banks are turning down such business is the risk models for what happens if interest rates return to historic levels.
Yes, that and their time honored practice of lending money only to those that can prove they don't need it.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
Tell that to the banks refusing £500 pm mortgages to people paying £1000 pm rent.
Exactly! Its a market failure, a failure caused by regulations not a free market.
Batteries in an ISO container - about £900,000 for 3MWh. So 10 of those would run Heathrow for an hour. £9,000,000
Diesel generators behind those - 2MW in an ISO. £400,000 each, say. 15 required to backup Heathrow. £6,000,000
So £15,000,000 in hardware.
How much did yesterday cost?
The other question would be: who paid yesterday's costs? To the extent that the answer is "other people than the airport" (including the airport's insurer) you can't really put those in the balance against how much it would cost the airport to add resilient backup facilities.
Don't forget costs of maintenance, upgrades and testing, by the way: for a "we need this once every two decades" facility I suspect they are significant.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
I should add, that prior to Brexit some of my colleagues did that. But my employer has stated that for tax and visa reasons, we may not work outside the UK, except for legitimate business travel.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
Christ on a bike! #Follow the paper trail from where it started.
It started in the late 90s/early 00s when people who could afford to pay a landlord's mortgage became priced out of paying for their own instead, due to flawed regulations.
It did not begin in the 80s or early 90s, when the market was working better.
And 4 in 10 being owned by landlords still leaves 6 in 10 being owned by owner occupiers, which is an improvement over 0 in 10 being owned by owner occupiers.
And even if zero homes had been sold under RTB we'd still have a housing shortage as our population demands have shot up.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
Delays to the processing are thankfully coming down with the new government.
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
Where will you put them, so that the locals are happy *and* the various legal issues are satisfied?
The rude, crude fact, is that nowhere in Europe or vaguely near will take such a facility.
The Times says the UK government may approach Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and North Macedonia. (I would note that Bosnia is maybe on the brink of civil war, so I can see legal objections there.)
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
Delays to the processing are thankfully coming down with the new government.
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
Where will you put them, so that the locals are happy *and* the various legal issues are satisfied?
The rude, crude fact, is that nowhere in Europe or vaguely near will take such a facility.
I previously suggested West Falkland. Wouldn't even need a fence as there's nowhere to go. Could provide a top class facility, meeting all civil rights needs, and British territory so no argument about that either. If I was a genuine refugee I'd tolerate the cold for a year, but not if I just wanted to disappear into the car wash system.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
Tell that to the banks refusing £500 pm mortgages to people paying £1000 pm rent.
And the reason banks are turning down such business is the risk models for what happens if interest rates return to historic levels.
Yes, that and their time honored practice of lending money only to those that can prove they don't need it.
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
Christ on a bike! #Follow the paper trail from where it started.
It started in the late 90s/early 00s when people who could afford to pay a landlord's mortgage became priced out of paying for their own instead, due to flawed regulations.
It did not begin in the 80s or early 90s, when the market was working better.
And 4 in 10 being owned by landlords still leaves 6 in 10 being owned by owner occupiers, which is an improvement over 0 in 10 being owned by owner occupiers.
And even if zero homes had been sold under RTB we'd still have a housing shortage as our population demands have shot up.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
Delays to the processing are thankfully coming down with the new government.
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
Where will you put them, so that the locals are happy *and* the various legal issues are satisfied?
The rude, crude fact, is that nowhere in Europe or vaguely near will take such a facility.
The Times says the UK government may approach Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and North Macedonia. (I would note that Bosnia is maybe on the brink of civil war, so I can see legal objections there.)
One thing I'd like to see happen immediately with immigrants is to send all the people begging at traffic lights to the North Pole, or the Moon. The bosses organising the gangs that run these people could usefully occupy the lower reaches of the Tower.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
Delays to the processing are thankfully coming down with the new government.
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
He has the opportunity to. He could be a great PM if he were to face down the vested interests holding back this country, in the same way as Thatcher faced down the NUM.
He could tear up planning restrictions, face down the totally BANANA NIMBY brigade, and set this country back on the path of sustainable growth.
He could also rip up the triple lock and rebalance the economy away from pandering to the featherbedded Boomer vote who have had it all their own way for decades.
And in doing so, he would not be alienating his voters since pensioners and NIMBYs are not the people who voted Labour last year.
But he won't. He's too afraid to actually stand up to anyone.
So he won't transform the country for a better and doesn't deserve another vote. He's got a chance, and he's blowing it.
Thatcher was only in the same league as Thatcher after the Falklands. There is no doubt Thatcher made her mark, but from my side of the fence her legacy is problematic.
Thatcher was making reforms even before the Falklands. The Falklands helped her cement her legacy, but she was already reforming well before then.
What is Starmer doing that years from now people can point to and say "that was a difficult decision, but the right thing to do, and we're better for it now"?
He has a landslide majority. He could face down any vested interest and command Parliament, but he's too afraid to do so - even when those vested interests lost the election and voted for his opponents anyway.
I am not doubting Starmer's timidity. I am critical of Thatcher's privatisation of utilities prospectus. Some went better than others. But her selling of UK assets to foreign buyers is wholly problematic. Right to buy has unravelled 45 years on too. Her performance wasn't the 11/10 most on here would award her.
From my PoV privatisation worked, across the board, but even if you disagree it was a serious reform that its proponents can point to and say "this was done - and it worked". That's what Starmer needs, and lacks. Even if its a serious reform that those on my side of the political spectrum might blanch at.
Right to Buy has not unravelled, what is problematic in the Housing Market began in the 00's onwards and is not a legacy of RTB. If we had enough construction to keep track with housing needs there would be no shortage of housing and people could afford their own home at a low cost as they could in the 80s and 90s before BTL kicked off and people with a vested interest and many properties could decide to lock others out of the market with telephone number house prices.
We haven't got enough public sector housing, that was entirely Thatcher's doing, squirreling away RTB receipts rather that reinvesting. A considerable amount of post war public sector housing stock is now rented out by Rachmaneque landlords.
You don't need as much public housing if people own their own homes, but unfortunately that fell off long after Thatcher had moved on, due to problems instigated after her (and one problem passed in 1948).
Landlords buying up properties kicked off in the late 90s/00s onwards, as I showed in my chart, not the 1980s/early 90s.
The British Nationality Act? Oh you mean the Planning Act.
But that's the problem Bart. People, particularly young people, can't afford their own homes. They have to rent black mould decorated hovels from private landlords at exorbitant fees. We need proper good quality council housing. Can we afford it? Probably not.
People can't afford their homes due to planning restrictions (which could be lifted) and the explosion of BTL and house prices from Brown's days in the Treasury onwards.
Neither of which are a legacy of Thatcher. In the 80s and early 90s house prices were affordable and BTL mortgages didn't even exist.
Can you not see the correlation through the mists of time? The one (RTB) led to the other (BTL).
Terrible economic policies like excluding house prices from inflation so the Bank of England suppressed CPI but allowed housing costs to spiral out of control led to RTB exploding.
Especially combined with planning restrictions and an explosion in population.
If planning restrictions didn't exist and house prices were low then BTL wouldn't exist since there's no point in buying property if you need to pay its costs but have no tenant to pay your mortgage as a tenant can sooner pay their own mortgage instead.
Tenants paying a landlord's mortgage instead of their own is a market failure. A market failure that did not exist until the turn of the century.
NIMFBY! I am quite happy sitting on an almost million pound property.
Follow the f*****' trail. Self funding public sector housing was fine. RTB was a bribe for the 1979 election. Then came BTL. You are probably right about planning (but not the field behind my house, please).
BTL came from the 00s onwards.
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
Tell that to the banks refusing £500 pm mortgages to people paying £1000 pm rent.
And the reason banks are turning down such business is the risk models for what happens if interest rates return to historic levels.
Yes, that and their time honored practice of lending money only to those that can prove they don't need it.
The 2008 crisis was partly down to banks buying into politicians demands to “democratise access to mortgages”
This lead to what the industry described as Liar Loans.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
Delays to the processing are thankfully coming down with the new government.
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
Where will you put them, so that the locals are happy *and* the various legal issues are satisfied?
The rude, crude fact, is that nowhere in Europe or vaguely near will take such a facility.
I previously suggested West Falkland. Wouldn't even need a fence as there's nowhere to go. Could provide a top class facility, meeting all civil rights needs, and British territory so no argument about that either. If I was a genuine refugee I'd tolerate the cold for a year, but not if I just wanted to disappear into the car wash system.
I would prefer to have the centre accessible for claimants to go straight there without arriving at the UK. I would like all centres for asylum processing to be outside the UK, with no processing done in situ at all.
An atypical Saturday afternoon with little or no distractions from the real sport - the horse racing.
In my part of London, a lot of people go out in the afternoon and if Canary Wharf and Stratford are any guide, there's lots of money about and there's a more optimistic mood out there.
On the issue of Right to Buy, it was first and foremost a political move. It created an initial generation of Conservative-voting home owners and their children, not having the option of public renting, had to become home owners themselves with all that flowed from that politically.
The remorseless rise of the Conservative vote in midlands and northern constituencies from 2001 to 2019 illustrated this - the children of the RTB generation themselves trying to become home owners and turning away from traditional statist politics to embrace aspirational Conservative ideals.
Cameron and Johnson owe their respective majorities to the Thatcher Revolution in home ownership though as we know in other parts of the country (London and the South East) accelerating prices have put the dream of home ownership beyond many so private rental has made a strong comeback via BTL. If you earn plenty but can't save enough for a deposit, renting is the only alternative.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
Delays to the processing are thankfully coming down with the new government.
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
Where will you put them, so that the locals are happy *and* the various legal issues are satisfied?
The rude, crude fact, is that nowhere in Europe or vaguely near will take such a facility.
I previously suggested West Falkland. Wouldn't even need a fence as there's nowhere to go. Could provide a top class facility, meeting all civil rights needs, and British territory so no argument about that either. If I was a genuine refugee I'd tolerate the cold for a year, but not if I just wanted to disappear into the car wash system.
I would prefer to have the centre accessible for claimants to go straight there without arriving at the UK. I would like all centres for asylum processing to be outside the UK, with no processing done in situ at all.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
I should add, that prior to Brexit some of my colleagues did that. But my employer has stated that for tax and visa reasons, we may not work outside the UK, except for legitimate business travel.
I was hoping to work for my firm in Europe for a while. That was a minor casualty of Brexit.
In today's related news the UK has a severe medicines shortage thanks in large part to Brexit. It is also destroying a profitable pharma export business.
"'Migrant hub' plan will send alarm bells clanging for many Labour MPs - as Tories smell blood
The government is said to be considering sending failed asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to overseas 'migrant hubs'. Although very different from the Rwanda plan, the echoes will alienate the party's more liberal supporters.
Offshore processing centers have always been a better idea than sending people to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Most importantly, they mean the risk of people just disappearing into the informal labour market completely disappears.
This doesn't seem to be even an offshore processing centre. It's somewhere to send people who have conclusively had their applications rejected.
Which doesn't remove the incentive to come here on a small boat, given that our acceptance rate is three times that of France, and that delays to the process offer ample opportunity to abscond. Deportations to 'the migrant hubs' are also likely to face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced.
Delays to the processing are thankfully coming down with the new government.
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
Where will you put them, so that the locals are happy *and* the various legal issues are satisfied?
The rude, crude fact, is that nowhere in Europe or vaguely near will take such a facility.
I previously suggested West Falkland. Wouldn't even need a fence as there's nowhere to go. Could provide a top class facility, meeting all civil rights needs, and British territory so no argument about that either. If I was a genuine refugee I'd tolerate the cold for a year, but not if I just wanted to disappear into the car wash system.
I would prefer to have the centre accessible for claimants to go straight there without arriving at the UK. I would like all centres for asylum processing to be outside the UK, with no processing done in situ at all.
You and I both know the real issue isn't illegal migration but legal migration. Johnson went for an almost open door approach in the wake of Brexit as I imagine he thought we needed an alternative labour supply post EU Freedom of Movement.
To what extent, if any, Starmer is going to tighten the rules relaxed by Johnson? We also see the spectre of re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it was once termed) growing among anti-immigration parties as the next step on from tightening extising policy.
Do we go as far as "one in, one out" for example? How and in what way would a repatriation scheme work? We can start with convicted criminals, fine, but do we then move to other groups and do we include people with dual nationality?
Conversely, those advocating a CANZUK approach in response to the Trumpist nonsense are arguing for full Freedom of Movement across the four countries. Would New Zealand welcome all our elderly retirees - perhaps not? We might want more young Kiwis and Aussies to work over here but would they want to come?
Between a closed door migration policy and a CANZUK approach, we might rebalance our population or we might not.
An atypical Saturday afternoon with little or no distractions from the real sport - the horse racing.
In my part of London, a lot of people go out in the afternoon and if Canary Wharf and Stratford are any guide, there's lots of money about and there's a more optimistic mood out there.
On the issue of Right to Buy, it was first and foremost a political move. It created an initial generation of Conservative-voting home owners and their children, not having the option of public renting, had to become home owners themselves with all that flowed from that politically.
The remorseless rise of the Conservative vote in midlands and northern constituencies from 2001 to 2019 illustrated this - the children of the RTB generation themselves trying to become home owners and turning away from traditional statist politics to embrace aspirational Conservative ideals.
Cameron and Johnson owe their respective majorities to the Thatcher Revolution in home ownership though as we know in other parts of the country (London and the South East) accelerating prices have put the dream of home ownership beyond many so private rental has made a strong comeback via BTL. If you earn plenty but can't save enough for a deposit, renting is the only alternative.
Sometimes, in despair, I wonder whether nationalisation of housing is the only way out.
Lunch is Albariño, espresso and tiramisu in Huella, the most famous seafood restaurant in Uruguay’s trendiest little town - Jose Ignacio. Like a kind of Portscatho with more money and worse steaks
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
I should add, that prior to Brexit some of my colleagues did that. But my employer has stated that for tax and visa reasons, we may not work outside the UK, except for legitimate business travel.
I was hoping to work for my firm in Europe for a while. That was a minor casualty of Brexit.
In today's related news the UK has a severe medicines shortage thanks in large part to Brexit. It is also destroying a profitable pharma export business.
I was waiting for an appointment (with the physio) in our local surgery the other day when someone came in asking for help; the local pharmacy couldn't source her medicines.It's a branch of a small multiple (ca 100 branches) so I would have thought someone could have found some.
Absolutely fascinating interview with Michael Lewis ('The Big Short') by Tim Miller on Bulwark covering what Trump is up to and the role of tech bros, crypto and Musk etc.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
An atypical Saturday afternoon with little or no distractions from the real sport - the horse racing.
In my part of London, a lot of people go out in the afternoon and if Canary Wharf and Stratford are any guide, there's lots of money about and there's a more optimistic mood out there.
On the issue of Right to Buy, it was first and foremost a political move. It created an initial generation of Conservative-voting home owners and their children, not having the option of public renting, had to become home owners themselves with all that flowed from that politically.
The remorseless rise of the Conservative vote in midlands and northern constituencies from 2001 to 2019 illustrated this - the children of the RTB generation themselves trying to become home owners and turning away from traditional statist politics to embrace aspirational Conservative ideals.
Cameron and Johnson owe their respective majorities to the Thatcher Revolution in home ownership though as we know in other parts of the country (London and the South East) accelerating prices have put the dream of home ownership beyond many so private rental has made a strong comeback via BTL. If you earn plenty but can't save enough for a deposit, renting is the only alternative.
Sometimes, in despair, I wonder whether nationalisation of housing is the only way out.
Do you mean nationalisation of house building or nationalise the entire housing stock?
Lunch is Albariño, espresso and tiramisu in Huella, the most famous seafood restaurant in Uruguay’s trendiest little town - Jose Ignacio. Like a kind of Portscatho with more money and worse steaks
Martin Amis lived about 300 yards away
I wouldn’t describe Portscatho as “trendy”. Seem to recall that it’s got a single decent coffee shop.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
I should add, that prior to Brexit some of my colleagues did that. But my employer has stated that for tax and visa reasons, we may not work outside the UK, except for legitimate business travel.
I was hoping to work for my firm in Europe for a while. That was a minor casualty of Brexit.
In today's related news the UK has a severe medicines shortage thanks in large part to Brexit. It is also destroying a profitable pharma export business.
My wife, a doctor, worked in drug safety at one of the big Swiss pharmas. Brexit was an absolute disaster for the UK pharma industry. I wanted to post some of the stuff that was happening at the time, but she asked me not to for confidentiality reasons. It certainly had a big impact on employment. They cancelled stuff that was moving to the UK and loads has been moved out.
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
I should add, that prior to Brexit some of my colleagues did that. But my employer has stated that for tax and visa reasons, we may not work outside the UK, except for legitimate business travel.
I was hoping to work for my firm in Europe for a while. That was a minor casualty of Brexit.
In today's related news the UK has a severe medicines shortage thanks in large part to Brexit. It is also destroying a profitable pharma export business.
My wife, a doctor, worked in drug safety at one of the big Swiss pharmas. Brexit was an absolute disaster for the UK pharma industry. I wanted to post some of the stuff that was happening at the time, but she asked me not to for confidentiality reasons. It certainly had a big impact on employment. They cancelled stuff that was moving to the UK and loads has been moved out.
More people work in that industry in the UK than in 2016. See the "Core Biopharma" (lighter blue) bars here:
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
I should add, that prior to Brexit some of my colleagues did that. But my employer has stated that for tax and visa reasons, we may not work outside the UK, except for legitimate business travel.
I was hoping to work for my firm in Europe for a while. That was a minor casualty of Brexit.
In today's related news the UK has a severe medicines shortage thanks in large part to Brexit. It is also destroying a profitable pharma export business.
My wife, a doctor, worked in drug safety at one of the big Swiss pharmas. Brexit was an absolute disaster for the UK pharma industry. I wanted to post some of the stuff that was happening at the time, but she asked me not to for confidentiality reasons. It certainly had a big impact on employment. They cancelled stuff that was moving to the UK and loads has been moved out.
More people work in that industry in the UK than in 2016. See the "Core Biopharma" (lighter blue) bars here:
An atypical Saturday afternoon with little or no distractions from the real sport - the horse racing.
In my part of London, a lot of people go out in the afternoon and if Canary Wharf and Stratford are any guide, there's lots of money about and there's a more optimistic mood out there.
On the issue of Right to Buy, it was first and foremost a political move. It created an initial generation of Conservative-voting home owners and their children, not having the option of public renting, had to become home owners themselves with all that flowed from that politically.
The remorseless rise of the Conservative vote in midlands and northern constituencies from 2001 to 2019 illustrated this - the children of the RTB generation themselves trying to become home owners and turning away from traditional statist politics to embrace aspirational Conservative ideals.
Cameron and Johnson owe their respective majorities to the Thatcher Revolution in home ownership though as we know in other parts of the country (London and the South East) accelerating prices have put the dream of home ownership beyond many so private rental has made a strong comeback via BTL. If you earn plenty but can't save enough for a deposit, renting is the only alternative.
Sometimes, in despair, I wonder whether nationalisation of housing is the only way out.
Do you mean nationalisation of house building or nationalise the entire housing stock?
The latter means civil war frankly.
Just nationalisation of rental homes would cause massive problems. The reason so many supported rtb was because in the 70's they moved from list based to need base criteria which meant many saw year after year there list number on council housing lists increase as others with more percieved need arrived on the list.
Nationalisation of all rental properties would make people like me homeless....can't afford to buy....assessed to low in need I would never get a nationalised rental as a single male below retirement
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
We all know the economy and the public finances are in a mess and we also know this didn't start on July 5th last year. Whether or not you think Reeves has made things worse or much worse is up to you but she had a dreadful inheritance and you can argue that how you like.
The central question remains as it has since the post-Covid inflationary boom - how do we get economic growth back? Yes, you can argue we lived off the ponzi scheme that was immigration-led growth for decades - in truth, we always have whether it's cheap labour from the fields, the Carribbean or Eastern Europe. Generating growth with a stagnant work force, an ageing population and all the demands of that ageing population is the conundrum which affects policy makers across most of the world.
We have the inevitable "supply side" response - cut regulation (that's how you end up with raw sewage in the rivers because you can't enforce what regulation you do have), spending (apparently the state is bloated) and taxes (the peasants groaning under the burden of taxes yearning to be free).
The "centre-left" has had no coherent economic policy since 2008 - the "centre right" trots out neo-Thatcherite platitudes which have been tried and failed. It may be technological innovation will be the next spur to economic growth - it's happened many times before.
Until then, we stagnate with a growing ageing population and a declining work force like the hamster stuck on the wheel with the wheel going ever faster. On the one hand, there is clear under employment in some sectors yet vacancy levels in many other sectors are falling as economic activity alows further.
I'll be blunt - I have no answers, no one does. All Governments can do is tinker at the edges and hope, pace Micawber, "something will turn up". The economic, social, cultural and political landscape was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, the responses to the pandemic and the post-pandemic euphoria and we are still adjusting to the new reality of the 2020s.
Um, when? She wasn't perfect, but economic decline was reversed under Thatcher and the fruits of that under Major were 'the golden economic legacy'.
Blair and Brown overspent, overregulated (except when they disastrously underregulated), and made a mess of the constitution and the economy. Cameron and Osborne did nothing to reverse either. Then you have May and Boris, two of the biggest taxers and spenders going.
So when was this neo-Thatcherite failure of which you speak?
It started under her - the selling of state assets to fund current spending; the increasing central control of local government; the abandonment of any coherent industrial policy; the obsession with housing as an investment, at the expense of actual construction; the privatisation of public service monopolies.
As you fairly say, she turned around the economy - but at the same time embedded deep seated problems which successive governments failed to address.
Today's problems simply aren't amenable to being solved by the policy mix she adopted.
I agree with all the flaws outlined in your post but question whether Thatcher really turned around the economy.
I'm too young to remember her first couple of years in any detail, but all I remember is a string of recessions, the last of which coincided with my entry to the labour market
Indeed, I think that there is a case that most of our current economic problems can be traced back to her policies:
An over centralised state, with little autonomy for councils An economy that prioritises financial engineering over real engineering Neglect of old coalfield areas. Fixation on property as an asset and investment Conversion of local authority residential property to private Buy to Let. A chronic trade deficit that can only be financed by selling off assets like utilities to foreign interests.
I am sure others can add more.
Buy to Let is a New Labour legacy not a Thatcher one.
I blame Dion Dublin and Homes Under the Hammer.
A couple of Irish women I know are selling their house in Brittany and they told me the market is very poor at the moment. They have had it valued at 210,000 euros.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
You've drawn a line in the sand at 1997. I am saying Thatcher set the wheels in motion in 1979. Without an availability of RTB properties coming up on the secondhand market twenty years later there would not have been the available stock for BTL
Comments
If a tenant can afford their landlord's mortgage, they ought to be able to afford their own, so the landlord ought to be redundant. Which was the case in the early 90s, which is why BTL did not exist then.
In my ideal world we'd remove planning restrictions and the invisible hand would do its thing and a 0 would be wiped off most people's house prices and housing costs would go back to being a cost and not an "asset" to be inflated.
https://neweconomics.org/2024/05/more-than-4-in-10-council-homes-sold-under-right-to-buy-now-owned-by-private-landlords#:~:text=Press Releases-,More than 4 in 10 council homes sold under right,now owned by private landlords&text=41% of all council homes,for Us alliance, published today.
It's a detatched 3 bedroom house in about 2/3rds of an acre. They had it built about 15 years ago and it's delightful. I couldn't believe houses like that would sell for what amounts to only £180,000 in such a desirable part of France so close to the South of England.
So I took a look and that price sounds typical. Why aren't the Brits moving there in droves and working from home?
https://www.frenchestateagents.com/brittany-property
The other problem is that very few jobs offer 5 day working from home. So what do you do about 2 days in Birmingham?
Deportations to these hubs won't "face exactly the same human rights challenges as deportations to Rwanda faced" as these hubs are not in Rwanda!
The rude, crude fact, is that nowhere in Europe or vaguely near will take such a facility.
Don't forget costs of maintenance, upgrades and testing, by the way: for a "we need this once every two decades" facility I suspect they are significant.
It did not begin in the 80s or early 90s, when the market was working better.
And 4 in 10 being owned by landlords still leaves 6 in 10 being owned by owner occupiers, which is an improvement over 0 in 10 being owned by owner occupiers.
And even if zero homes had been sold under RTB we'd still have a housing shortage as our population demands have shot up.
It did not begin in the 80s or early 90s, when the market was working better.
And 4 in 10 being owned by landlords still leaves 6 in 10 being owned by owner occupiers, which is an improvement over 0 in 10 being owned by owner occupiers.
And even if zero homes had been sold under RTB we'd still have a housing shortage as our population demands have shot up.
______________________
Fair point.
I think the flying bug probably got the worst of this encounter.
This lead to what the industry described as Liar Loans.
An atypical Saturday afternoon with little or no distractions from the real sport - the horse racing.
In my part of London, a lot of people go out in the afternoon and if Canary Wharf and Stratford are any guide, there's lots of money about and there's a more optimistic mood out there.
On the issue of Right to Buy, it was first and foremost a political move. It created an initial generation of Conservative-voting home owners and their children, not having the option of public renting, had to become home owners themselves with all that flowed from that politically.
The remorseless rise of the Conservative vote in midlands and northern constituencies from 2001 to 2019 illustrated this - the children of the RTB generation themselves trying to become home owners and turning away from traditional statist politics to embrace aspirational Conservative ideals.
Cameron and Johnson owe their respective majorities to the Thatcher Revolution in home ownership though as we know in other parts of the country (London and the South East) accelerating prices have put the dream of home ownership beyond many so private rental has made a strong comeback via BTL. If you earn plenty but can't save enough for a deposit, renting is the only alternative.
In today's related news the UK has a severe medicines shortage thanks in large part to Brexit. It is also destroying a profitable pharma export business.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/22/brexit-key-factor-worst-uk-drug-shortages-in-four-years
To what extent, if any, Starmer is going to tighten the rules relaxed by Johnson? We also see the spectre of re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it was once termed) growing among anti-immigration parties as the next step on from tightening extising policy.
Do we go as far as "one in, one out" for example? How and in what way would a repatriation scheme work? We can start with convicted criminals, fine, but do we then move to other groups and do we include people with dual nationality?
Conversely, those advocating a CANZUK approach in response to the Trumpist nonsense are arguing for full Freedom of Movement across the four countries. Would New Zealand welcome all our elderly retirees - perhaps not? We might want more young Kiwis and Aussies to work over here but would they want to come?
Between a closed door migration policy and a CANZUK approach, we might rebalance our population or we might not.
Lunch is Albariño, espresso and tiramisu in Huella, the most famous seafood restaurant in Uruguay’s trendiest little town - Jose Ignacio. Like a kind of Portscatho with more money and worse steaks
Martin Amis lived about 300 yards away
NEW THREAD
The destruction of trust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbGq0KEiPNg
The latter means civil war frankly.
Seem to recall that it’s got a single decent coffee shop.
Having a summer house in Normandy (I don’t like it much hotter than that) is not really compatible with my current job.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1344913/biopharmaceutical-employment-in-the-uk/
Meanwhile, the EU continues to regulate R&D away:
https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/germany-belgium-and-france-among-those-hit-hardest-as-commission-s-pharma-legislation-proposals-risk-europe-losing-a-third-of-its-share-of-global-rd-by-2040/
Nationalisation of all rental properties would make people like me homeless....can't afford to buy....assessed to low in need I would never get a nationalised rental as a single male below retirement
You've drawn a line in the sand at 1997. I am saying Thatcher set the wheels in motion in 1979. Without an availability of RTB properties coming up on the secondhand market twenty years later there would not have been the available stock for BTL