Broad 8/15. Best figures by an England bowler in Tests since Devon Malcolm blew away South Africa at the Oval in 1994 with 9-57.
Have England ever had three successive five fors or six fors by three different bowlers?
1981 they had two in a row (Willis, then Botham). Can't think of any others off-hand. I'll keep looking, but I'd advise you to email TMS or Cricinfo for the answer as well.
The Guardian is not a serious newspaper. It decides its opinions regardless of any facts, frankly. Anything a Tory government does is wrong, in its eyes.
The one thing I still don't understand: what services exactly did this charity provide? What did it actually do? What went on at its Camberwell premises? And are there really 6000 children in South London reliant on KC?
The "6000 kids have lost support" line could mean just that. But it's vague enough to encompass: we have a library here available to 6000 kids and if it closes they can't use it even though in fact only 38 kids actually use it or, if it closes, they can go to another library a bit further away.
I'd assume that it is 'we've supported 6,000 kids in the last 20 years'...
One report I've read said that they include amongst the number of kids they say they support (whatever that support is, details to be provided no doubt) are not just the actual kids they help but all the other kids in the child's classroom because they too are "supported" by the "support" given to the desperate child.
Well with that approach to figures she could be in investment banking!
No, Investment Banking has some regulation and compliance.
KC looks as if it was completely uncontrolled, dishing out taxpayers money here, there and everywhere with very limited oversight and traceability. Gawd knows what else was going on - no wonder PC Plod has taken an interest.
The spotlight will be on the Charity Commissioners sooner rather than later.
It's a bit of an in-joke.
I've been an investment banker for 20 years (although my father claims that I'm not a "real banker"). @Cyclefree is... let's just says she's @Cyclefree.
Zhuge Liang reference: latter stages of the Three Kingdoms era. The Kingdom of Wei had sent 20,000 or so men to invade Shu [most of whose men were far away and couldn't defend it]. Zhuge Liang, lacking forces to oppose the enemy in combat, had his men hide, opened the doors of his city, and sat near the gate playing the zither. The enemy [I think commanded by the canny Sima Yi] was dumbfounded and decided it must be a ploy, so they retreated.
Lots of myth mixing with history in the Three Kingdoms (like early Livy), but it's a nice story.
Broad gets criticism, not without cause, but even with the Aussies practising their Lemming impressions, this is the sort of spell he manages on occasion, where everything falls fo rhim.
I actually agree with your final point, HL, but I think it's unlikely. What may happen is that some universities move towards vocational subjects (e.g. UWE in Bristol has stopped offering History altogether) and others ditch the technical courses, and others will merge.
The worst problem is a lot of small essentially colleges in London with high overheads which could be profitably merged (or merged back) to one institution. A friend of mine who worked in the UoL when it split said they lost far more than they gained, and I think the losses are getting greater rather than less with time.
In Austria, when they changed the poly/uni model, they introduced special titles for professors in the ex-polys to militate against the problem you identify. But it would be hard to introduce that in this country now.
If the structure cannot be changed then surely HMG could at least do something about the funding of research, which is where we started this discussion. Is the HEFC still going? I lose track, but if it or its successor were to be given "guidance" then most of the nonsense could be eliminated and resources targeted where they will do the most good (and, as much as you or I might personally regret it, that won't be funding history or whether horses smile).
I actually agree with your final point, HL, but I think it's unlikely. What may happen is that some universities move towards vocational subjects (e.g. UWE in Bristol has stopped offering History altogether) and others ditch the technical courses, and others will merge.
The worst problem is a lot of small essentially colleges in London with high overheads which could be profitably merged (or merged back) to one institution. A friend of mine who worked in the UoL when it split said they lost far more than they gained, and I think the losses are getting greater rather than less with time.
In Austria, when they changed the poly/uni model, they introduced special titles for professors in the ex-polys to militate against the problem you identify. But it would be hard to introduce that in this country now.
If the structure cannot be changed then surely HMG could at least do something about the funding of research, which is where we started this discussion. Is the HEFC still going? I lose track, but if it or its successor were to be given "guidance" then most of the nonsense could be eliminated and resources targeted where they will do the most good (and, as much as you or I might personally regret it, that won't be funding history or whether horses smile).
Still going and still useless. Don't assume mergers can be easily controlled by funding though. If you want to be gobsmacked, look at the shenanigans over Lampeter and UWIC in Wales - now UWTSD and Cardiff Met. That took years to deal with - and was a catastrophe for all concerned, including HEFCW. The irony is both Lampeter and UWIC were up the pole financially, so in theory refusing the supplies should have made life easy - but it only made it harder.
"There should have been considerable irony in seeing Biden’s long-standing presidential ambitions brought back to lifein a column by the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. It was Dowd who set off the controversy that destroyed Biden’s first presidential campaign in 1987, when she reported that he had ripped off — in one videotaped instance, anyway — a story about his lineage from a British Labour politician of the day, Neil Kinnock."
Clinton’s team should probably take a moment to survey the wreckage of recent presidential campaigns that seemed immensely promising until the candidates themselves showed up and ruined everything.
It does nicely encapsulate what I expect to be one of her problems. But I still think her age is most likely to tell against her in the end.
Clinton’s team should probably take a moment to survey the wreckage of recent presidential campaigns that seemed immensely promising until the candidates themselves showed up and ruined everything.
It does nicely encapsulate what I expect to be one of her problems. But I still think her age is most likely to tell against her in the end.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Clinton’s team should probably take a moment to survey the wreckage of recent presidential campaigns that seemed immensely promising until the candidates themselves showed up and ruined everything.
It does nicely encapsulate what I expect to be one of her problems. But I still think her age is most likely to tell against her in the end.
Not if she's up against Biden who is in his 70s
True, for the Democrats. But all potential Republican challengers with the exception of Trump (who surely isn't going to get it) are younger.
Clinton’s team should probably take a moment to survey the wreckage of recent presidential campaigns that seemed immensely promising until the candidates themselves showed up and ruined everything.
It does nicely encapsulate what I expect to be one of her problems. But I still think her age is most likely to tell against her in the end.
Hillary's problem is that she's a terrible politician. She happens to be married to an excellent one but is no more fit to be President than Coleen Rooney is to lead the England and Manchester United strike force. She reminds me of the talentless but demanding Yoko Ono.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
I'm moving out of our "five bed" (three up/three down) terrace in Leyton at the end of the month. We've been paying £2,200, it'll now be £2,500. Beyond a joke.
Speaking of Nuneaton, two new stations on the Coventry to Nuneaton branch are due to open next month: Bermuda Park, just south of Nuneaton, and Coventry Arena, next to the Ricoh stadium.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
That's true. But I would add we also need to think about where we build them, and what infrastructure will support them - power, water, transport.
Therefore, it might not be a bad idea to think about how we can ensure that there is demand where there is space and space where there is demand. How do you add 60000 homes a year in London? It's already densely populated, short of power and water, and has rather inadequate transport links? Or would it be better to move five government ministries to Manchester or Leeds with 300,000 civil servants tagged on? I know it wasn't a success when the Beeb tried it though, which is something to bear in mind.
1. Creeping renationalisation of rail 2. Keeping options open on TTIP 3. Combining the NHS with care (but apparently moving away from a death tax model of funding, since he writes "everybody is asked to make a contribution according to their means and where everybody then has the peace of mind of knowing that all their care needs, and those of their family, are covered.") 4. Devomax for local government. 5. A moratorium on fracking and all decisions to proceed ultimately taken locally
He's definitely hitching his skirt leftwards rather than rightwards.
I presume they will also now be removed from the Green Party? You can't be in the party and also a Lab supporter. Or was this an organised coup attempt? Makes no sense - a left Corbyn party would eat into Green votes, although would leave the Greens free to return to its more ecological roots.
I presume they will also now be removed from the Green Party? You can't be in the party and also a Lab supporter. Or was this an organised coup attempt? Makes no sense - a left Corbyn party would eat into Green votes, although would leave the Greens free to return to its more ecological roots.
You may find this of interest - if only in a somewhat alarming way:
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
That's true. But I would add we also need to think about where we build them, and what infrastructure will support them - power, water, transport.
Therefore, it might not be a bad idea to think about how we can ensure that there is demand where there is space and space where there is demand. How do you add 60000 homes a year in London? It's already densely populated, short of power and water, and has rather inadequate transport links? Or would it be better to move five government ministries to Manchester or Leeds with 300,000 civil servants tagged on? I know it wasn't a success when the Beeb tried it though, which is something to bear in mind.
You'd know more about this than me - any ideas?
London is not densely populated by comparison with most major cities around the world:
For myself, I would focus on developing the eastern half of London. It's happening without too much planning to some extent anyway, so it should be possible to push it further.
It won;t be long before some wag gives us a list of names whose 'boys took a hell of a beating.'
Les Patterson's one obviously.
"Kylie Minogue! Steve Irwin! Holly Valance! Crocodile Dundee! Natalie Imbruglia! Ian Thorpe! Mrs. Mangel! We have beaten them all! We have beaten them all! Dame Edna, can you hear me? Dame Edna, your boys took a hell of a beating! Your boys took a hell of a beating!"
I presume they will also now be removed from the Green Party? You can't be in the party and also a Lab supporter. Or was this an organised coup attempt? Makes no sense - a left Corbyn party would eat into Green votes, although would leave the Greens free to return to its more ecological roots.
How many Tories4Corbyn have been removed from the Tory party?
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
That's true. But I would add we also need to think about where we build them, and what infrastructure will support them - power, water, transport.
Therefore, it might not be a bad idea to think about how we can ensure that there is demand where there is space and space where there is demand. How do you add 60000 homes a year in London? It's already densely populated, short of power and water, and has rather inadequate transport links? Or would it be better to move five government ministries to Manchester or Leeds with 300,000 civil servants tagged on? I know it wasn't a success when the Beeb tried it though, which is something to bear in mind.
You'd know more about this than me - any ideas?
London is not densely populated by comparison with most major cities around the world:
For myself, I would focus on developing the eastern half of London. It's happening without too much planning to some extent anyway, so it should be possible to push it further.
Oh, and we need to look up as well as out.
Interesting, thank you - although the proportion and the raw numbers may be a bit of a different story, of course. Never been to the eastern part of London - don't think I've ever been further east than Waterloo station, in fact. So it's intriguing to hear that you think there's some scope for changes there.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
That requires planning, infrastructure investment and dealing with NIMBYs. Unlocking existing stock for purchase by making private rental unprofitable is much, much simpler. Young people should not be funding the retirement of the older middle class leeches who "invest" in property.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
That requires planning, infrastructure investment and dealing with NIMBYs. Unlocking existing stock for purchase by making private rental unprofitable is much, much simpler. Young people should not be funding the retirement of the older middle class leeches who "invest" in property.
Canvas your City Boy bosses at work; see how many of them can be persuaded to sell off their property investments, and how popular your ideas are with them.
Regardless, it doesn't solve the problem of a housing shortage. The renters currently occupying those homes won't suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke; where will they live?
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
That requires planning, infrastructure investment and dealing with NIMBYs. Unlocking existing stock for purchase by making private rental unprofitable is much, much simpler. Young people should not be funding the retirement of the older middle class leeches who "invest" in property.
I'm a renter, who is obliged to spend £450/month on a single room. But I don't think rearranging the ownership of houses is going to help. It's just not the problem.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
That requires planning, infrastructure investment and dealing with NIMBYs. Unlocking existing stock for purchase by making private rental unprofitable is much, much simpler. Young people should not be funding the retirement of the older middle class leeches who "invest" in property.
Canvas your City Boy bosses at work; see how many of them can be persuaded to sell off their property investments, and how popular your ideas are with them.
Regardless, it doesn't solve the problem of a housing shortage. The renters currently occupying those homes won't suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke; where will they live?
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
That requires planning, infrastructure investment and dealing with NIMBYs. Unlocking existing stock for purchase by making private rental unprofitable is much, much simpler. Young people should not be funding the retirement of the older middle class leeches who "invest" in property.
I'm a renter, who is obliged to spend £450/month on a single room. But I don't think rearranging the ownership of houses is going to help. It's just not the problem.
It's not.
The problem is a shortage of homes, not who currently owns them.
London has it's own problems, driven by foreigners parking their money in a safe country, and high salaries and City bonuses looking for somewhere to go. The idea that your average Buy to Let landlord is investing in flashy Shoreditch and Shepherds Bush pads is laughable. Those properties will continue to remain out of the reach of those not fortunate enough to be richly paid.
If George Osborne is out for some more clothes-stealing, he might adopt with adaptations this idea from Andy Burnham's manifesto:
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
Sounds like a hire purchase scheme for houses, it might be quite useful but as ever the key to housing in this country is and will always be unlocking existing stock from the hands of private investors and landlords.
The key is simpler still. We need to build more homes, much faster. If the supply is increased, the rest will follow as night follows day.
That requires planning, infrastructure investment and dealing with NIMBYs. Unlocking existing stock for purchase by making private rental unprofitable is much, much simpler. Young people should not be funding the retirement of the older middle class leeches who "invest" in property.
Canvas your City Boy bosses at work; see how many of them can be persuaded to sell off their property investments, and how popular your ideas are with them.
Regardless, it doesn't solve the problem of a housing shortage. The renters currently occupying those homes won't suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke; where will they live?
Why would I care what leeches think?
There is no evidence that you think, never mind care about the process.
Comments
For entirely different reasons.
KC looks as if it was completely uncontrolled, dishing out taxpayers money here, there and everywhere with very limited oversight and traceability. Gawd knows what else was going on - no wonder PC Plod has taken an interest.
The spotlight will be on the Charity Commissioners sooner rather than later.
It's a bit of an in-joke.
I've been an investment banker for 20 years (although my father claims that I'm not a "real banker"). @Cyclefree is... let's just says she's @Cyclefree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War
Zhuge Liang reference: latter stages of the Three Kingdoms era. The Kingdom of Wei had sent 20,000 or so men to invade Shu [most of whose men were far away and couldn't defend it]. Zhuge Liang, lacking forces to oppose the enemy in combat, had his men hide, opened the doors of his city, and sat near the gate playing the zither. The enemy [I think commanded by the canny Sima Yi] was dumbfounded and decided it must be a ploy, so they retreated.
Lots of myth mixing with history in the Three Kingdoms (like early Livy), but it's a nice story.
I think there are four of us who have worked for large investment banks on PB: Cyclefree, MaxPB, you and me.
Anyone else?
I'm looking forward to the "Fox Torn Apart" headline on your thread...
Bond trader in the 1980s and 1990s, but in a niche house..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_cricket_team_in_the_West_Indies_in_2003–04#1st_Test_11_March_.E2.80.93_15_March
Harmison 6-61 in the 1st Innings of the 2nd Test
Jones 5-57 in the 2nd Innings of the 2nd Test
Flintoff 5-58 in the 1st Innings of the 3rd Test
Hoggard took 4-35 in the 2nd Innings of the 3rd Test - including a hat-trick.
Richard St Ruth @RSR108
Brilliant by Mark Carney as he bowls @EdConwaySky a yorker :-)
EdC: Are we allowed 1 or 2 questions?
M C: "One. That was your question Ed
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/whether-or-not-biden-runs-clinton-has-a-problem-125976220476.html
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/629258121177890817
Not if she's up against Biden who is in his 70s
"I will develop the option of ‘Rent to Own’ – mortgages that require no deposit. These government-backed schemes will help councils and housing associations to provide good quality homes, while helping those who want to get onto the property ladder with a Home Purchase Plan. ‘Rent to Own’ would give aspiring first-time buyers a clear route into home ownership and a way out of the ‘rental trap’."
Our housing market doesn't need any more inflation but our politicians don't seem to have learned that yet.
True, for the Democrats. But all potential Republican challengers with the exception of Trump (who surely isn't going to get it) are younger.
Hillary's problem is that she's a terrible politician. She happens to be married to an excellent one but is no more fit to be President than Coleen Rooney is to lead the England and Manchester United strike force. She reminds me of the talentless but demanding Yoko Ono.
Les Patterson's one obviously.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11787301/Labour-kicks-out-100-Green-Party-candidates-from-leadership-vote.html
Jeremy Cooper
Liz Burnham
Yvette Corbyn
Therefore, it might not be a bad idea to think about how we can ensure that there is demand where there is space and space where there is demand. How do you add 60000 homes a year in London? It's already densely populated, short of power and water, and has rather inadequate transport links? Or would it be better to move five government ministries to Manchester or Leeds with 300,000 civil servants tagged on? I know it wasn't a success when the Beeb tried it though, which is something to bear in mind.
You'd know more about this than me - any ideas?
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/558290fc01925b0184000001/attachments/original/1438791117/ANDY_BURNHAM_MANIFESTO.pdf?1438791117
The points I pick out are as follows:
1. Creeping renationalisation of rail
2. Keeping options open on TTIP
3. Combining the NHS with care (but apparently moving away from a death tax model of funding, since he writes "everybody is asked to make a contribution according to their means and where everybody then has the peace of mind of knowing that all their care needs, and those of their family, are covered.")
4. Devomax for local government.
5. A moratorium on fracking and all decisions to proceed ultimately taken locally
He's definitely hitching his skirt leftwards rather than rightwards.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/03/labour-is-being-consumed-by-corbynista-ultra-left-micro-sects/
https://lsecities.net/media/objects/articles/urban-age-cities-compared/en-gb/
And it has proportionately fewer public sector workers than almost anywhere else in Britain already:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/fig9regionalpse_tcm77-376175.png
For myself, I would focus on developing the eastern half of London. It's happening without too much planning to some extent anyway, so it should be possible to push it further.
Oh, and we need to look up as well as out.
Regardless, it doesn't solve the problem of a housing shortage. The renters currently occupying those homes won't suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke; where will they live?
new thread
The problem is a shortage of homes, not who currently owns them.
London has it's own problems, driven by foreigners parking their money in a safe country, and high salaries and City bonuses looking for somewhere to go. The idea that your average Buy to Let landlord is investing in flashy Shoreditch and Shepherds Bush pads is laughable. Those properties will continue to remain out of the reach of those not fortunate enough to be richly paid.