Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
A controversial critical edition of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf has sold out instantly after going on sale in German bookshops for the first time in 70 years.
Demand for the 2,000-page annotated version of the inflammatory text that hit bookstores on January 8 massively exceeded supply, with 15,000 advance orders for an initial print run of just 4,000 copies.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
When you say "something must be done", what do you mean?
You say you're a Tory, this is where I'm confused, what exactly do you lot stand for these days?
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
Fair enough, but where will the dosh come from to build these super new houses with rents capped at one third of the tenant's income?
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
When you say "something must be done", what do you mean?
You say you're a Tory, this is where I'm confused, what exactly do you lot stand for these days?
I mean market forces with current incentives are producing socially non-optimal outcomes.
Me: fiscal responsibility; social liberalism; a scepticism of state ownership of the means of production or intervention in markets generally.
Never has the chasm between the Tories and Labour nationally looked so wide in my lifetime. But Khan v Goldsmith for the mayoralty have basically pulled different balls from the same bag of tricks.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
Fair enough, but where will the dosh come from to build these super new houses with rents capped at one third of the tenant's income?
It won't be capped at the particular tenants' income, just be set to reflect the average one. Johnson does affordable housing his way: http://www.propertyweek.com/boris-johnson-mulls-fixed-affordable-housing-target/5076035.article, Sadiq's going to do it his. I'm not necessarily in favour of any individual proposal, I just struggle to feel strongly when you could cross one guy's name out and write the other.
Wind turbine luddites should hang their heads in shame over this:
"Britain abandons onshore wind just as new technology makes it cheap Vestas chief Runevad says UK rules shut out the latest hi-tech turbines, leaving Britain behind as the global wind boom spreads"
The technology can also be used offshore just as easy and many more can be built offshore than onshore would be allowed or acceptable by the locals. It also becomes even more cheaper by doing so.
Economy of scale innit?
That's the sound of someone loosing the subsidy that made their business plan.
Meanwhile, the cost of solar has dropped below that of building coal fire capacity. Let the wind mill types beat that if they can.....
@BBCWestminHour: @LouHaigh tells us it's vital for every member of the Labour Party to have a say on policy over Trident, and for policy to be decided soon.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
Same.
When I said "hankering for rent controls" I meant just that: he would probably like to introduce them if he could (he wouldn't have the power would he?) He wants to exert some downward pressure on rents though.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
When you say "something must be done", what do you mean?
You say you're a Tory, this is where I'm confused, what exactly do you lot stand for these days?
I mean market forces with current incentives are producing socially non-optimal outcomes.
Me: fiscal responsibility; social liberalism; a scepticism of state ownership of the means of production or intervention in markets generally.
Never has the chasm between the Tories and Labour nationally looked so wide in my lifetime. But Khan v Goldsmith for the mayoralty have basically pulled different balls from the same bag of tricks.
Oh come off it, help to buy, right to buy are all Tory policies that distort the market. You lot have morphed into a vote buying, debt increasing ponzi mob to equal Brown's nonsense.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Can you please tell us who everyone votes for? Some people are sneaky and don't say.
Forget Corbyn's twitter fun, this is the political story of the night
An expected £6m fall in Labour’s annual income as a result of legal changes being proposed by the Conservatives will make it impossible for the party to maintain its current structure, staffing or offices, a confidential party document released to the Guardian reveals.
At last a (relatively) perceptive article on something I have been going on about for a long time!
First I believe this is fully justified, any union member, can still pay the political levee if they whish, or make a donation directly to the party, just as everybody else can. with the currant system unions can make it so butacratick and difficult to opt out, that most don't bother, a leaked internal document from Unite the Union in 2011 found that between 30 and 35% of there members had voted conservative at the 2010 GE, but given that only about 7% of members had opted out. This means at least a quarter of a million people had voted against a party that they had been funding. this was morally wrong and only perpetuated by the use of Buricratick Inertia, by union bosses for there own ends.
The prediction of a 90% drop of is resalable but may be larger, based on the number voting in last years leadership election 80,000 + the estimated number of party members who are also in unions 60,000, would suggest that drop off may be 95-97%
The effect could be much larger than the article suggests for another reason, the unions raze about £22 mil a year from the political levee, but only officially donate about £8 million, much of the reminder is used to benefit the labour party, discussed donations, sponsorship, advertising in party magazines, subsidised rents, pay of lesion officers who do more than leasing and so on.
I suspect this removal of an unfair advantage, may have larger long term effects on the labour party than even the currant leadership.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
When you say "something must be done", what do you mean?
You say you're a Tory, this is where I'm confused, what exactly do you lot stand for these days?
I mean market forces with current incentives are producing socially non-optimal outcomes.
Me: fiscal responsibility; social liberalism; a scepticism of state ownership of the means of production or intervention in markets generally.
Never has the chasm between the Tories and Labour nationally looked so wide in my lifetime. But Khan v Goldsmith for the mayoralty have basically pulled different balls from the same bag of tricks.
Oh come off it, help to buy, right to buy are all Tory policies that distort the market. You lot have morphed into a vote buying, debt increasing ponzi mob to equal Brown's nonsense.
Yes, Conservative party housing policy has been drawn from the same playbook (a somewhat Blairite one, I think) as Labour policy - to push it and pull a little here, a little there. None of which has really worked. At least housing starts are rising, if not by nearly enough...
Wind turbine luddites should hang their heads in shame over this:
"Britain abandons onshore wind just as new technology makes it cheap Vestas chief Runevad says UK rules shut out the latest hi-tech turbines, leaving Britain behind as the global wind boom spreads"
The technology can also be used offshore just as easy and many more can be built offshore than onshore would be allowed or acceptable by the locals. It also becomes even more cheaper by doing so.
Economy of scale innit?
That's the sound of someone loosing the subsidy that made their business plan.
Meanwhile, the cost of solar has dropped below that of building coal fire capacity. Let the wind mill types beat that if they can.....
Don't have a windmill in the fight ...... however I always considered that offshore wind would be far more successful than onshore wind any day of the week and probably cheaper due to the greater numbers that could be built at one time. Less resistance from the land as well as the locals
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Can you please tell us who everyone votes for? Some people are sneaky and don't say.
Nah, but I know the hypocritical Tories, they tend to be the sneaky ones you refer to.
Ask Mr Watford who he voted for, it wasn't ukip, labour or Libs and Watford isn't in Scotland.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Vincent Van Helsing, voted for Nick Griffin, is that you?
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Vincent Van Helsing, voted for Nick Griffin, is that you?
I'm not sure if that qualifies as Godwin's Law but good effort.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
What does the mayor of London have to do with housing? Why should it be wrong or somehow party specific to intervene in the housing market - or indeed any market. Capitalism is not the same as laissez faire. Most markets if not all are regulated in all capitalist countries. Banking is regulated and banking is a highly capitalist activity. Housing is subject to planning regulations and the release of suitable and sufficient land. The situation in London is no different. Apparently London has 80,000 empty homes.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
When you say "something must be done", what do you mean?
You say you're a Tory, this is where I'm confused, what exactly do you lot stand for these days?
I mean market forces with current incentives are producing socially non-optimal outcomes.
Me: fiscal responsibility; social liberalism; a scepticism of state ownership of the means of production or intervention in markets generally.
Never has the chasm between the Tories and Labour nationally looked so wide in my lifetime. But Khan v Goldsmith for the mayoralty have basically pulled different balls from the same bag of tricks.
Oh come off it, help to buy, right to buy are all Tory policies that distort the market. You lot have morphed into a vote buying, debt increasing ponzi mob to equal Brown's nonsense.
Yes, Conservative party housing policy has been drawn from the same playbook (a somewhat Blairite one, I think) as Labour policy - to push it and pull a little here, a little there. None of which has really worked. At least housing starts are rising, if not by nearly enough...
The increase in population per annum, though immigration alone, is currently running at about 300,000. That is the equivalent of a city the size of Cardiff, every year. The number of new houses built will never be enough, and nor will be the number of doctors, nurses, school places and any other element of social fabric.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Can you please tell us who everyone votes for? Some people are sneaky and don't say.
Nah, but I know the hypocritical Tories, they tend to be the sneaky ones you refer to.
Ask Mr Watford who he voted for, it wasn't ukip, labour or Libs and Watford isn't in Scotland.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
What does the mayor of London have to do with housing? Why should it be wrong or somehow party specific to intervene in the housing market - or indeed any market. Capitalism is not the same as laissez faire. Most markets if not all are regulated in all capitalist countries. Banking is regulated and banking is a highly capitalist activity. Housing is subject to planning regulations and the release of suitable and sufficient land. The situation in London is no different. Apparently London has 80,000 empty homes.
You see, Corbynism is alive and kicking. This post demonstrates why he won a landslide, regulation is king.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
What does the mayor of London have to do with housing? Why should it be wrong or somehow party specific to intervene in the housing market - or indeed any market. Capitalism is not the same as laissez faire. Most markets if not all are regulated in all capitalist countries. Banking is regulated and banking is a highly capitalist activity. Housing is subject to planning regulations and the release of suitable and sufficient land. The situation in London is no different. Apparently London has 80,000 empty homes.
"Why should it be wrong or somehow party specific to intervene in the housing market - or indeed any market."
Some level of state invention into the market is considered necessary by every established political party. But it is a general theme that the Tories prefer a lighter touch... I am not sure as an observation that is controversial.
Some intervention into the housing market is warranted. The Corbyn wing would go further than I am comfortable with. The market is like a flowing river; you can only do so much to hold it back.
There are general issues for the national government to address and London-specific ones where the mayor properly has a role. It has a market that looks different, and produces different outcomes, to the country as a whole.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Can you please tell us who everyone votes for? Some people are sneaky and don't say.
Nah, but I know the hypocritical Tories, they tend to be the sneaky ones you refer to.
Ask Mr Watford who he voted for, it wasn't ukip, labour or Libs and Watford isn't in Scotland.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. ... " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
When you say "something must be done", what do you mean?
You say you're a Tory, this is where I'm confused, what exactly do you lot stand for these days?
I mean market forces with current incentives are producing socially non-optimal outcomes.
Me: fiscal responsibility; social liberalism; a scepticism of state ownership of the means of production or intervention in markets generally.
Never has the chasm between the Tories and Labour nationally looked so wide in my lifetime. But Khan v Goldsmith for the mayoralty have basically pulled different balls from the same bag of tricks.
Oh come off it, help to buy, right to buy are all Tory policies that distort the market. You lot have morphed into a vote buying, debt increasing ponzi mob to equal Brown's nonsense.
Yes, Conservative party housing policy has been drawn from the same playbook (a somewhat Blairite one, I think) as Labour policy - to push it and pull a little here, a little there. None of which has really worked. At least housing starts are rising, if not by nearly enough...
The increase in population per annum, though immigration alone, is currently running at about 300,000. That is the equivalent of a city the size of Cardiff, every year. The number of new houses built will never be enough, and nor will be the number of doctors, nurses, school places and any other element of social fabric.
If we can sustain 10% y/o/y growth, then we might hope to get to 250,000 nationally. That surely must be the aim, then we might actually ease the pressure on homes (because the average home must have ~2 people). Looking at immigration is another option with other upsides/downsides.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Can you please tell us who everyone votes for? Some people are sneaky and don't say.
Nah, but I know the hypocritical Tories, they tend to be the sneaky ones you refer to.
Ask Mr Watford who he voted for, it wasn't ukip, labour or Libs and Watford isn't in Scotland.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Can you please tell us who everyone votes for? Some people are sneaky and don't say.
Nah, but I know the hypocritical Tories, they tend to be the sneaky ones you refer to.
Ask Mr Watford who he voted for, it wasn't ukip, labour or Libs and Watford isn't in Scotland.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Can you please tell us who everyone votes for? Some people are sneaky and don't say.
Nah, but I know the hypocritical Tories, they tend to be the sneaky ones you refer to.
Ask Mr Watford who he voted for, it wasn't ukip, labour or Libs and Watford isn't in Scotland.
(Snip) It's actually incredibly cheap considering that it guarantees our security against the great powers. For a thousandth of our economic output we can guarantee it on an on-going basis against other nuclear powers.
I would imagine that it is cheaper than the dreadnought race v. Germany et al. circa 1910.
Your last line intrigued me. Because it's the sort of thing I enjoy doing, I've been throwing some figures around for the last hour or two.
Over the FY 1905 to 1914 when the Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were built, 9.4% of the total defence budget was spent just on constructing the new ships.
Given the current estimated cost of the successor Trident replacement, and the period over which they will be built, and the projected construction costs, then it comes to 2.7% of the total defence budget on building the new vessels.
Hence, as a proportion of the total defence budgets, the new Trident replacement construction project will cost between a quarter and a third what the entire Dreadnought construction project costs. That gave them around 33 dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, whilst we will get four Trident boats. Although the Tridents contain far more destructive power.
This shows just how technically advanced the new Dreadnought-style warships were.
The former of these figures (for the pre-WW1 dreadnoughts) should be more reliable than the one for the Trident replacement, which is all estimates for future costs and spending.
I'll have to check my sums in the morning when I have had some sleep. But it smells right.
That is a very interesting post.
I'm now wondering what the cost of state-of-the-art warships, relative to economic output, has been since, say, 1500.
Building a dreadnought battle fleet was eye wateringly expensive. It was an arms race on the lines of a ICBM race. When the Germans announced their empire building ambitions and then started to build battleships it was a pre declaration of war. After WW1 they became unaffordable, hence the naval treaties.
With Corbynism sweeping the nation, when JJ is inevitably swept into No 10 in 2020, held aloft by millions of Corbynites, I don't like Noel Gallaghers going to get the gig to play any tunes at the party...
Asked what he thinks of Mr Corbyn, he added: 'I don't like communism'
I don't understand how the referendum could possibly be held in June or July because turnout would be very low in June just a few weeks after the local and Scottish/Welsh/London elections (as we saw in 1999), and in July people have started going on their summer holidays.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I'd like a new Maserati. Where's my hand out?
Well you vote conservative, you're all for "rolling back the state", you tell me.
Unless you were hiding in the ballot box, you have absolutely no idea who I vote for.
Yeah and I'm a Dutchman
Can you please tell us who everyone votes for? Some people are sneaky and don't say.
Nah, but I know the hypocritical Tories, they tend to be the sneaky ones you refer to.
Ask Mr Watford who he voted for, it wasn't ukip, labour or Libs and Watford isn't in Scotland.
You really think I'm in Watford? Oh dear.
It wouldn't matter where you lived
What if he lived in Buckingham?
He'd still vote conservative.
Did they stand in 2015?
Nope.
I know some who drew on the ballot and voted conservative, there were a lot of spoiled votes, 1289 in fact. By far the most in the ge.
Wind turbine luddites should hang their heads in shame over this:
"Britain abandons onshore wind just as new technology makes it cheap Vestas chief Runevad says UK rules shut out the latest hi-tech turbines, leaving Britain behind as the global wind boom spreads"
The technology can also be used offshore just as easy and many more can be built offshore than onshore would be allowed or acceptable by the locals. It also becomes even more cheaper by doing so.
Economy of scale innit?
What 'new technology'? I read the piece (against my better judgement when I saw Ambrose Evans - Pritchard had written it) and the only substantive difference was they want to build them 30ft bigger. All the actual gadgetry can surely be used in the manufacture of smaller turbines. The man has made an art form of being ludicrously wrong on every topic.
Wind turbine luddites should hang their heads in shame over this:
"Britain abandons onshore wind just as new technology makes it cheap Vestas chief Runevad says UK rules shut out the latest hi-tech turbines, leaving Britain behind as the global wind boom spreads"
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
What does the mayor of London have to do with housing? Why should it be wrong or somehow party specific to intervene in the housing market - or indeed any market. Capitalism is not the same as laissez faire. Most markets if not all are regulated in all capitalist countries. Banking is regulated and banking is a highly capitalist activity. Housing is subject to planning regulations and the release of suitable and sufficient land. The situation in London is no different. Apparently London has 80,000 empty homes.
"Why should it be wrong or somehow party specific to intervene in the housing market - or indeed any market."
Some level of state invention into the market is considered necessary by every established political party. But it is a general theme that the Tories prefer a lighter touch... I am not sure as an observation that is controversial.
Some intervention into the housing market is warranted. The Corbyn wing would go further than I am comfortable with. The market is like a flowing river; you can only do so much to hold it back.
There are general issues for the national government to address and London-specific ones where the mayor properly has a role. It has a market that looks different, and produces different outcomes, to the country as a whole.
The problem is the existing intervention to *stop* house being built.
With Corbynism sweeping the nation, when JJ is inevitably swept into No 10 in 2020, held aloft by millions of Corbynites, I don't like Noel Gallaghers going to get the gig to play any tunes at the party...
Asked what he thinks of Mr Corbyn, he added: 'I don't like communism'
I suspect he will be in favour of the northern powerhouse though.
Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?
Actually I think rather absent.
"To introduce a ‘London Living Rent’ option for new affordable housing. This will be a below-market rent, based on the principle that rents should be around one-third of renters’ incomes and not half. This will provide a genuinely 'affordable' option, filling the gap between the new social housing we need to build and homes for private sale or rent. By keeping rents down, tenants will be able to afford their rents while saving for a deposit if they want to. " and that other one about security of tenure, etc.
I want to live somewhere I can't afford so someone else should pay for it.
I have a disdain for interventions that contradict the market, but something must be done about housing in London. This might come as a shock, but even as a Tory I could live with Khan. Most of what's on that leaflet could be on Zac's, really.
What does the mayor of London have to do with housing? Why should it be wrong or somehow party specific to intervene in the housing market - or indeed any market. Capitalism is not the same as laissez faire. Most markets if not all are regulated in all capitalist countries. Banking is regulated and banking is a highly capitalist activity. Housing is subject to planning regulations and the release of suitable and sufficient land. The situation in London is no different. Apparently London has 80,000 empty homes.
You see, Corbynism is alive and kicking. This post demonstrates why he won a landslide, regulation is king.
Regulation is not 'king' or whatever it is you want to spout. Banking is a regulated industry. International banking is a regulated international industry, banks are required to keep a certain level of liquid deposits. You cannot add an extension to your house beyond a certain size or type without regulatory approval. You cannot do internal modifications beyond a certain type without regulatory approval. Activities are regulated and achieving the right balance is important.
(Snip) It's actually incredibly cheap considering that it guarantees our security against the great powers. For a thousandth of our economic output we can guarantee it on an on-going basis against other nuclear powers.
I would imagine that it is cheaper than the dreadnought race v. Germany et al. circa 1910.
Your last line intrigued me. Because it's the sort of thing I enjoy doing, I've been throwing some figures around for the last hour or two.
Over the FY 1905 to 1914 when the Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were built, 9.4% of the total defence budget was spent just on constructing the new ships.
Given the current estimated cost of the successor Trident replacement, and the period over which they will be built, and the projected construction costs, then it comes to 2.7% of the total defence budget on building the new vessels.
Hence, as a proportion of the total defence budgets, the new Trident replacement construction project will cost between a quarter and a third what the entire Dreadnought construction project costs. That gave them around 33 dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, whilst we will get four Trident boats. Although the Tridents contain far more destructive power.
This shows just how technically advanced the new Dreadnought-style warships were.
The former of these figures (for the pre-WW1 dreadnoughts) should be more reliable than the one for the Trident replacement, which is all estimates for future costs and spending.
I'll have to check my sums in the morning when I have had some sleep. But it smells right.
That is a very interesting post.
I'm now wondering what the cost of state-of-the-art warships, relative to economic output, has been since, say, 1500.
Building a dreadnought battle fleet was eye wateringly expensive. It was an arms race on the lines of a ICBM race. When the Germans announced their empire building ambitions and then started to build battleships it was a pre declaration of war. After WW1 they became unaffordable, hence the naval treaties.
In Georgian and Napoleonic times a great deal of Britains economy revolved around the Navy. The Baltic trade in lumber and tar was as important as the East Indian trade to the economy.
(Snip) It's actually incredibly cheap considering that it guarantees our security against the great powers. For a thousandth of our economic output we can guarantee it on an on-going basis against other nuclear powers.
I would imagine that it is cheaper than the dreadnought race v. Germany et al. circa 1910.
Your last line intrigued me. Because it's the sort of thing I enjoy doing, I've been throwing some figures around for the last hour or two.
Over the FY 1905 to 1914 when the Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were built, 9.4% of the total defence budget was spent just on constructing the new ships.
Given the current estimated cost of the successor Trident replacement, and the period over which they will be built, and the projected construction costs, then it comes to 2.7% of the total defence budget on building the new vessels.
Hence, as a proportion of the total defence budgets, the new Trident replacement construction project will cost between a quarter and a third what the entire Dreadnought construction project costs. That gave them around 33 dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, whilst we will get four Trident boats. Although the Tridents contain far more destructive power.
This shows just how technically advanced the new Dreadnought-style warships were.
The former of these figures (for the pre-WW1 dreadnoughts) should be more reliable than the one for the Trident replacement, which is all estimates for future costs and spending.
I'll have to check my sums in the morning when I have had some sleep. But it smells right.
That is a very interesting post.
I'm now wondering what the cost of state-of-the-art warships, relative to economic output, has been since, say, 1500.
Building a dreadnought battle fleet was eye wateringly expensive. It was an arms race on the lines of a ICBM race. When the Germans announced their empire building ambitions and then started to build battleships it was a pre declaration of war. After WW1 they became unaffordable, hence the naval treaties.
In Georgian and Napoleonic times a great deal of Britains economy revolved around the Navy. The Baltic trade in lumber and tar was as important as the East Indian trade to the economy.
(Snip) It's actually incredibly cheap considering that it guarantees our security against the great powers. For a thousandth of our economic output we can guarantee it on an on-going basis against other nuclear powers.
I would imagine that it is cheaper than the dreadnought race v. Germany et al. circa 1910.
Your last line intrigued me. Because it's the sort of thing I enjoy doing, I've been throwing some figures around for the last hour or two.
Over the FY 1905 to 1914 when the Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were built, 9.4% of the total defence budget was spent just on constructing the new ships.
Given the current estimated cost of the successor Trident replacement, and the period over which they will be built, and the projected construction costs, then it comes to 2.7% of the total defence budget on building the new vessels.
Hence, as a proportion of the total defence budgets, the new Trident replacement construction project will cost between a quarter and a third what the entire Dreadnought construction project costs. That gave them around 33 dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, whilst we will get four Trident boats. Although the Tridents contain far more destructive
The former of these figures (for the pre-WW1 dreadnoughts) should be more reliable than the one for the Trident replacement, which is all estimates for future costs and spending.
I'll have to check my sums in the morning when I have had some sleep. But it smells right.
That is a very interesting post.
I'm now wondering what the cost of state-of-the-art warships, relative to economic output, has been since, say, 1500.
Building a dreadnought battle fleet was eye wateringly expensive. It was an arms race on the lines of a ICBM race. When the Germans announced their empire building ambitions and then started to build battleships it was a pre declaration of war. After WW1 they became unaffordable, hence the naval treaties.
In Georgian and Napoleonic times a great deal of Britains economy revolved around the Navy. The Baltic trade in lumber and tar was as important as the East Indian trade to the economy.
I've read that and the previous volume but I can't remember if he answers my question. Great books though.
I am not sure that it is addressed in % of GDP terms, but it certainly must have been pretty significant. HMS Victory had a crew of over 900, and while most ships would have been smaller we had an awful lot of them.
Building a dreadnought battle fleet was eye wateringly expensive. It was an arms race on the lines of a ICBM race. When the Germans announced their empire building ambitions and then started to build battleships it was a pre declaration of war. After WW1 they became unaffordable, hence the naval treaties.
In Georgian and Napoleonic times a great deal of Britains economy revolved around the Navy. The Baltic trade in lumber and tar was as important as the East Indian trade to the economy.
I've read that and the previous volume but I can't remember if he answers my question. Great books though.
I am not sure that it is addressed in % of GDP terms, but it certainly must have been pretty significant. HMS Victory had a crew of over 900, and while most ships would have been smaller we had an awful lot of them.
I do remember some beautiful examples from that book of how attempts to control costs can misfire. Something to do with the Government setting a maximum price for naval supplies (clothing?) that was way below cost, so they locked themselves into buying junk.
David Cameron has been accused of being “nothing short of irresponsible” after indicating that the government had not made any preparations should Britain vote to leave the European Union."
Talking of pensions I need a good pension advisor but no idea how to find one to trust. I have asked around and most people say we'll try this person / company but watch out for XYZ or they were good but for this point or that point.
I am not a lover of annuities as it looks like you buy a pot and then if you keel over a few weeks later the pension company keeps the lot or perhaps gives a miserly half to my wife. Probably got that all wrong just no idea.
Just need to know what it's all worth as I am approaching 60 and what should I do now for the best? I have a number of pensions some frozen but have been paying something since 18 with exception of 4 years into a private pension. State payments are bang up to date.
Any guidance woul helpful because just don't know who to trust with one of the biggest financial decisions I have to make.
While I would not offer financial advice, my plan is to invest in a selection of global (some US, some European, some UK, some Asian) dividend paying stocks. This should enable you to get an income stream that grows in-line (or faster than) inflation, while offering your descendents something when you pass on, and offering a comparable initial yield.
However, I would not that this does increase your risk somewhat.
It is hard to see much value anywhere.
An index linked annuity for a 60 year old is 2.8% currently. And your family get nothing when you eventually pop your clogs.
It's not that hard to put together a collection of 25 companies that should offer you a diversified stream of growing income from across the world, and which yields more than 2.8%.
So which high yielding sectors would you have invested in over the last 5 years? Banks? Commodities? Oil? Pharma about the only high paying sector left & that isn't without capital risk
(Personally, I've gone for a portfolio of illiquid secured bonds - e.g. Enterprise Inns - plus property backed state-cashflow sourced companies like Medix.
Comments
'Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?'
With zero chance of ever introducing them, Livingstone pulled the same stunt in 2012.
You say you're a Tory, this is where I'm confused, what exactly do you lot stand for these days?
Me: fiscal responsibility; social liberalism; a scepticism of state ownership of the means of production or intervention in markets generally.
Never has the chasm between the Tories and Labour nationally looked so wide in my lifetime. But Khan v Goldsmith for the mayoralty have basically pulled different balls from the same bag of tricks.
Meanwhile, the cost of solar has dropped below that of building coal fire capacity. Let the wind mill types beat that if they can.....
When I said "hankering for rent controls" I meant just that: he would probably like to introduce them if he could (he wouldn't have the power would he?) He wants to exert some downward pressure on rents though.
At last a (relatively) perceptive article on something I have been going on about for a long time!
First I believe this is fully justified, any union member, can still pay the political levee if they whish, or make a donation directly to the party, just as everybody else can. with the currant system unions can make it so butacratick and difficult to opt out, that most don't bother, a leaked internal document from Unite the Union in 2011 found that between 30 and 35% of there members had voted conservative at the 2010 GE, but given that only about 7% of members had opted out. This means at least a quarter of a million people had voted against a party that they had been funding. this was morally wrong and only perpetuated by the use of Buricratick Inertia, by union bosses for there own ends.
The prediction of a 90% drop of is resalable but may be larger, based on the number voting in last years leadership election 80,000 + the estimated number of party members who are also in unions 60,000, would suggest that drop off may be 95-97%
The effect could be much larger than the article suggests for another reason, the unions raze about £22 mil a year from the political levee, but only officially donate about £8 million, much of the reminder is used to benefit the labour party, discussed donations, sponsorship, advertising in party magazines, subsidised rents, pay of lesion officers who do more than leasing and so on.
I suspect this removal of an unfair advantage, may have larger long term effects on the labour party than even the currant leadership.
Ask Mr Watford who he voted for, it wasn't ukip, labour or Libs and Watford isn't in Scotland.
Why should it be wrong or somehow party specific to intervene in the housing market - or indeed any market. Capitalism is not the same as laissez faire. Most markets if not all are regulated in all capitalist countries. Banking is regulated and banking is a highly capitalist activity.
Housing is subject to planning regulations and the release of suitable and sufficient land. The situation in London is no different. Apparently London has 80,000 empty homes.
Some level of state invention into the market is considered necessary by every established political party. But it is a general theme that the Tories prefer a lighter touch... I am not sure as an observation that is controversial.
Some intervention into the housing market is warranted. The Corbyn wing would go further than I am comfortable with. The market is like a flowing river; you can only do so much to hold it back.
There are general issues for the national government to address and London-specific ones where the mayor properly has a role. It has a market that looks different, and produces different outcomes, to the country as a whole.
After WW1 they became unaffordable, hence the naval treaties.
Asked what he thinks of Mr Corbyn, he added: 'I don't like communism'
So would employer pension contributions still be offset against Corp tax? If so, party time for sal sac and even more for family Ltd companies then???
I think more likely to just reduce annual allowance further, 20k anyone?
I know some who drew on the ballot and voted conservative, there were a lot of spoiled votes, 1289 in fact. By far the most in the ge.
Banking is a regulated industry. International banking is a regulated international industry, banks are required to keep a certain level of liquid deposits. You cannot add an extension to your house beyond a certain size or type without regulatory approval. You cannot do internal modifications beyond a certain type without regulatory approval.
Activities are regulated and achieving the right balance is important.
NAM Roger covers it well in:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Command-Ocean-History-1649-1815/dp/0141026901
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/01/after-cologne-we-cant-let-bigots-steal-feminism
David Cameron has been accused of being “nothing short of irresponsible” after indicating that the government had not made any preparations should Britain vote to leave the European Union."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4661769.ece
(Personally, I've gone for a portfolio of illiquid secured bonds - e.g. Enterprise Inns - plus property backed state-cashflow sourced companies like Medix.