It's funny, the worries about the housing market on here remind me of the worries about peak oil a decade ago.
We're going to have a similar switch in perspectives in the UK - and especially London - regarding house prices.
Between now and 2020, net immigration to the UK will turn negative. Partly that will be because we leave the EU, partly it's because our economy is very fragile and we're likely to hit a serious economic roadblock, partly it's because immigrants feel less welcome (see the dramatic drop in the number of EU nationals applying to be nurses in the UK), partly it will be because there is a natural number of EU citizens returning home, partly it will be because there will likely be some drop off in investment levels in the UK.
And this happens at the same time that an unprecedented amount of new housing comes on the market in London. There are now more residential units under construction in London that at any time since the immediate post war building boom.
Finally, of course, interest rates will rise.
All this has to be put against the backdrop of us not having the same number of children as historically. The UK TFR is 1.8. Now, that's better than Germany, but it's still more than 10% below replacement level.
In other words, absent immigration (which will be negative), the number of people in the UK will decline. Falling numbers of people, declining divorce rates, and an increased number of properties means dramatic falls in house prices. I really wouldn't advise being leveraged and long prime London real estate.
I agree wholeheartedly. This graph by Martin Armstrong will be proved right:
Thanks to the collapse in the pound I'm almost there
It's got a long way to go yet. GBPUSD is headed under parity. I think we topped out around the GBPUSD1.30 level the week before last, after a choppy corrective recovery from $1.1450 when we had the overnight flash crash. GBPUSD 0.84 is the long term target area from the analysis I've done, it'll be a fun ride to see it get there over the next few years.
I remember your previous "hunches"
Well I've been a long term bear on the pound, and its served me very well so far thankyou. And I turned bullish on the US stockmarket, notably the Dow, around May 2014, which has served me very well so far, and it looks set to get to nearly 40,000 - its going to be a fun ride:
Thanks to the collapse in the pound I'm almost there
It's got a long way to go yet. GBPUSD is headed under parity. I think we topped out around the GBPUSD1.30 level the week before last, after a choppy corrective recovery from $1.1450 when we had the overnight flash crash. GBPUSD 0.84 is the long term target area from the analysis I've done, it'll be a fun ride to see it get there over the next few years.
I remember your previous "hunches"
I am expecting the opposite, assuming the government can stitch up some sort of deal with the DUP to see it through at least the medium term. GBPUSD will rise toward 1.40, at least until the moment of truth re. Brexit starts to approach.
All this libdem leadership election stuff made me nostalgic for who I voted for back in the day...
2006 definitely voted for Huhne over Ming 2007 genuinely can't remember but suspect I stuck with Huhne. Would have voted for Lynne Featherstone in a heartbeat. 2015 I was so disillusioned I didn't bother to vote. Would have probably gone Farron.
2017 Still disillusioned! Still have a vote just about, but not inspired by any of them. Where's the candidate with the sense of humour? Would have voted for Clegg if he'd not felt the electorate's boot.
Fine until reality intrudes on your pipe dreams and leaves you and your compatriots in an even worse position. Real, rather than relative, poverty is almost (but not entirely) non existent in Britain. Things can and will get far, far worse under someone like Corbyn. When the country is like Greece and can no longer afford to pay for medicines then it is people like you who will be responsible.
Care to bet on these predictions of doom under Corbyn? Say £20 (or $ if you prefer) to a charity of my/your choice?
I can't see how you can bet on such things. How do we judge just how bad is disastrous? If you want to bet on the UK going into recession if Corbyn becomes PM then I am fine with that. If you want to bet on us losing ratings with the agencies then that as well.
FPT - okay how about this. If Corbyn wins a majority and is in government for a minimum of two years and the economy is not already in recession before he takes over:
Then if there is a recession whilst he is PM I will pay £20 to a charity of your choice. If there is no recession - you can give £20 to UNICEF?
If any of the initial clauses don't hold then bet is void.
Happy? Is that clear or does it need some modification?
I prefer recession to ratings agency... Feels more objective.
Thanks to the collapse in the pound I'm almost there
It's got a long way to go yet. GBPUSD is headed under parity. I think we topped out around the GBPUSD1.30 level the week before last, after a choppy corrective recovery from $1.1450 when we had the overnight flash crash. GBPUSD 0.84 is the long term target area from the analysis I've done, it'll be a fun ride to see it get there over the next few years.
I remember your previous "hunches"
I am expecting the opposite, assuming the government can stitch up some sort of deal with the DUP to see it through at least the medium term. GBPUSD will rise toward 1.40, at least until the moment of truth re. Brexit starts to approach.
Fine until reality intrudes on your pipe dreams and leaves you and your compatriots in an even worse position. Real, rather than relative, poverty is almost (but not entirely) non existent in Britain. Things can and will get far, far worse under someone like Corbyn. When the country is like Greece and can no longer afford to pay for medicines then it is people like you who will be responsible.
Care to bet on these predictions of doom under Corbyn? Say £20 (or $ if you prefer) to a charity of my/your choice?
I can't see how you can bet on such things. How do we judge just how bad is disastrous? If you want to bet on the UK going into recession if Corbyn becomes PM then I am fine with that. If you want to bet on us losing ratings with the agencies then that as well.
FPT - okay how about this. If Corbyn wins a majority and is in government for a minimum of two years and the economy is not already in recession before he takes over:
Then if there is a recession whilst he is PM I will pay £20 to a charity of your choice. If there is no recession - you can give £20 to UNICEF?
If any of the initial clauses don't hold then bet is void.
Happy? Is that clear or does it need some modification?
I prefer recession to ratings agency... Feels more objective.
Actually to be fair I previously offered that average growth under Corbyn would be more than average of May/Cameron.
We could do a tenner on that and a tenner on no recession?
It's funny, the worries about the housing market on here remind me of the worries about peak oil a decade ago.
We're going to have a similar switch in perspectives in the UK - and especially London - regarding house prices.
Between now and 2020, net immigration to the UK will turn negative. Partly that will be because we leave the EU, partly it's because our economy is very fragile and we're likely to hit a serious economic roadblock, partly it's because immigrants feel less welcome (see the dramatic drop in the number of EU nationals applying to be nurses in the UK), partly it will be because there is a natural number of EU citizens returning home, partly it will be because there will likely be some drop off in investment levels in the UK.
And this happens at the same time that an unprecedented amount of new housing comes on the market in London. There are now more residential units under construction in London that at any time since the immediate post war building boom.
Finally, of course, interest rates will rise.
All this has to be put against the backdrop of us not having the same number of children as historically. The UK TFR is 1.8. Now, that's better than Germany, but it's still more than 10% below replacement level.
In other words, absent immigration (which will be negative), the number of people in the UK will decline. Falling numbers of people, declining divorce rates, and an increased number of properties means dramatic falls in house prices. I really wouldn't advise being leveraged and long prime London real estate.
It's dangerous to argue from Britain to London. Over the next 10 years London's population will increase - from immigration, internal migration, and a high birth rate. As for prime real estate in the city, perhaps Saudi demand will rise, even dramatically. Ditto demand from the US and China. That London has an increasingly third-world profile won't in itself deter billionaires.
The argument for leaving the single market is often focused around the need to end the free movement of people. However, we argue, and many experts agree, that changes to our immigration system can be made while keeping us inside it.
How long can Labour keep this split under control? How long can they conceal, from their mainly Remainer voters, that the Corbyn leadership is Hardline Leave?
It only becomes a huge issue if there is another election before Brexit. But the split is very lopsided - it is Corbyn and McDonnell on one side and most MPs, CLPs, members and unions on the other side.
VAT is currently on extensions to houses .New housing is VAT free maybe we should put VAT on new houses that are built with 4 bedrooms or over , to encourage smaller builds for first time buyers.
Fine until reality intrudes on your pipe dreams and leaves you and your compatriots in an even worse position. Real, rather than relative, poverty is almost (but not entirely) non existent in Britain. Things can and will get far, far worse under someone like Corbyn. When the country is like Greece and can no longer afford to pay for medicines then it is people like you who will be responsible.
Care to bet on these predictions of doom under Corbyn? Say £20 (or $ if you prefer) to a charity of my/your choice?
I can't see how you can bet on such things. How do we judge just how bad is disastrous? If you want to bet on the UK going into recession if Corbyn becomes PM then I am fine with that. If you want to bet on us losing ratings with the agencies then that as well.
FPT - okay how about this. If Corbyn wins a majority and is in government for a minimum of two years and the economy is not already in recession before he takes over:
Then if there is a recession whilst he is PM I will pay £20 to a charity of your choice. If there is no recession - you can give £20 to UNICEF?
If any of the initial clauses don't hold then bet is void.
Happy? Is that clear or does it need some modification?
I prefer recession to ratings agency... Feels more objective.
Yep that seems a reasonable bet to me. Actually I am happy with UNICEF as well. That way whoever loses they win. I always forget, which of the Peter's do we use as the Guardian of the Bet?
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether unction.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Yes, QE and easy money is effecting a wealth transfer toward the wealthy, and the pattern of property ownership in the country is progressively returning to the early 20th century situation where a minority of owners let to a majority of renters.
Given the social progress that was achieved after the landowning class was forced to relinquish its hold on property after the First World War, coupled with the boom in housing after the Second, it is urgent (and very much in the Conservative Party interest) to find a way to put the decline in home ownership into reverse.
For all the talk of the need for more housebuilding, which is not unimportant, the principal causes of our housing crisis are financial - low interest rates, cheap mortgages, QE, government support for the housing market, and excessive openness to foreign investors (/criminals). These latter issues are not ones that the Tories appear particularly willing or able to tackle.
The housing shortage crisis will resolve itself, and we'll go to the other extreme, as markets are wont to do - lots of abandoned properties once interest rates start to rise, and lots of new housing in London which isn't going to sell. It'll be rather like the government bond market when Central banks around the world have withdrawn QE, a crisis of no bid. And don't think that those elderly voters seeing their house price collapse are going to thank the current government for it, nor will the young be thanking the government either.
George Osborne's tax changes particularly on BTL were classic government, a tax raid on an attractive sector, and the revenue projections classically assumed that behaviour would remain unchanged - well it didn't and the exchequer has raised a lot less than they thought they would. Classic socialist / marxist thinking there from a Conservative government. They'll save us from the nightmare of a Corbyn / McDonnell government won't they? You'd better not believe it!
It's funny, the worries about the housing market on here remind me of the worries about peak oil a decade ago.
We're going to have a similar switch in perspectives in the UK - and especially London - regarding house prices.
Between now and 2020, net immigration to the UK will turn negative. Partly that will be because we leave the EU, partly it's because our economy is very fragile and we're likely to hit a serious economic roadblock, partly it's because immigrants feel less welcome (see the dramatic drop in the number of EU nationals applying to be nurses in the UK), partly it will be because there is a natural number of EU citizens returning home, partly it will be because there will likely be some drop off in investment levels in the UK.
And this happens at the same time that an unprecedented amount of new housing comes on the market in London. There are now more residential units under construction in London that at any time since the immediate post war building boom.
Finally, of course, interest rates will rise.
All this has to be put against the backdrop of us not having the same number of children as historically. The UK TFR is 1.8. Now, that's better than Germany, but it's still more than 10% below replacement level.
In other words, absent immigration (which will be negative), the number of people in the UK will decline. Falling numbers of people, declining divorce rates, and an increased number of properties means dramatic falls in house prices. I really wouldn't advise being leveraged and long prime London real estate.
short term the biggest hit is the exchange rate, EU migrants have just had a 15% pay cut so repatriating earning just got harder
We need to build millions of homes and no party had any serious answer to the housing crisis at the recent election. We cannot rely on S106 planning gain and building on brownfield land or any of the other tinkering around the edges that the parties have announced to date. We need central government and councils to build homes in addition to the private developers and Registered Providers and we need to build on green belt land.
The housing shortage crisis will resolve itself, and we'll go to the other extreme, as markets are wont to do - lots of abandoned properties once interest rates start to rise, and lots of new housing in London which isn't going to sell. It'll be rather like the government bond market when Central banks around the world have withdrawn QE, a crisis of no bid. And don't think that those elderly voters seeing their house price collapse are going to thank the current government for it, nor will the young be thanking the government either.
George Osborne's tax changes particularly on BTL were classic government, a tax raid on an attractive sector, and the revenue projections classically assumed that behaviour would remain unchanged - well it didn't and the exchequer has raised a lot less than they thought they would. Classic socialist / marxist thinking there from a Conservative government. They'll save us from the nightmare of a Corbyn / McDonnell government won't they? You'd better not believe it!
Weren't the taxes on buy to let designed to change behaviour?
In Outer London the problem is the opposite - value is maximised by building lots of one- and two-bed flats, many sold to BTL investors, whereas the community need is for family housing.
That is genuinely surprising. The Executive House building problem is so ubiquitous in the shires and the provision of starter homes so poor that I had never thought it would be any different in London.
Mind you I find the whole concept of living in and around London to be strange. I am 1 hour 15 minutes from London on the train. Straight into Kings Cross. The East Coast Main Line station is 15 minutes drive from me. I can buy a very decent 4 or 5 bedroom house here for probably less than people will pay in the London suburbs for a small semi and would probably be in work before them on a normal day (if I worked in London).
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
All this libdem leadership election stuff made me nostalgic for who I voted for back in the day...
2006 definitely voted for Huhne over Ming 2007 genuinely can't remember but suspect I stuck with Huhne. Would have voted for Lynne Featherstone in a heartbeat. 2015 I was so disillusioned I didn't bother to vote. Would have probably gone Farron.
2017 Still disillusioned! Still have a vote just about, but not inspired by any of them. Where's the candidate with the sense of humour? Would have voted for Clegg if he'd not felt the electorate's boot.
Only Uncle Vince declared so far ! & Yes I tried to personally save Clegg but always realised he was in danger to Labour at the GE
Housing is interesting. Borehamwood is becoming a very congested little town.
Planners seem to have approved hundreds and hundreds of new flats with absolutely ZERO investment in roads or other infrastructure.
I'm trying to get out but my flat has been difficult to sell and there are several blocks being constructed right now.
It really feels that planners are trying to cram as many small flats into Borehamwood as possible to keep the rest of Hertsmere all nice.
They are probably trying to get higher quantums of affordable housing from private developed which means there is less gross development value for infrastructure investment.
It's funny, the worries about the housing market on here remind me of the worries about peak oil a decade ago.
We're going to have a similar switch in perspectives in the UK - and especially London - regarding house prices.
Between now and 2020, net immigration to the UK will turn negative. Partly that will be because we leave the EU, partly it's because our economy is very fragile and we're likely to hit a serious economic roadblock, partly it's because immigrants feel less welcome (see the dramatic drop in the number of EU nationals applying to be nurses in the UK), partly it will be because there is a natural number of EU citizens returning home, partly it will be because there will likely be some drop off in investment levels in the UK.
And this happens at the same time that an unprecedented amount of new housing comes on the market in London. There are now more residential units under construction in London that at any time since the immediate post war building boom.
Finally, of course, interest rates will rise.
All this has to be put against the backdrop of us not having the same number of children as historically. The UK TFR is 1.8. Now, that's better than Germany, but it's still more than 10% below replacement level.
In other words, absent immigration (which will be negative), the number of people in the UK will decline. Falling numbers of people, declining divorce rates, and an increased number of properties means dramatic falls in house prices. I really wouldn't advise being leveraged and long prime London real estate.
short term the biggest hit is the exchange rate, EU migrants have just had a 15% pay cut so repatriating earning just got harder
it might now be more economic to work at home
It's almost like free markets are naturally self correcting.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
No deal is better than a bad deal that is going to be to hard a sell politically. The Conservatives may not have won a majority, but they still came just shy of one at a time when none of the smaller parties including the DUP want another GE anytime soon. The SNP certainly didn't want the last GE we just had, and with so many of their own MPs sitting on very small majorities I doubt they will be keen to vote for another GE this side of Christmas.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
All this libdem leadership election stuff made me nostalgic for who I voted for back in the day...
2006 definitely voted for Huhne over Ming 2007 genuinely can't remember but suspect I stuck with Huhne. Would have voted for Lynne Featherstone in a heartbeat. 2015 I was so disillusioned I didn't bother to vote. Would have probably gone Farron.
2017 Still disillusioned! Still have a vote just about, but not inspired by any of them. Where's the candidate with the sense of humour? Would have voted for Clegg if he'd not felt the electorate's boot.
Only Uncle Vince declared so far ! & Yes I tried to personally save Clegg but always realised he was in danger to Labour at the GE
LAB candidate got bugger all support from Lab nationally too. Couldn't even afford a few stakes let alone a campaign manager.
Not a Progress type though so will be a good addition.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
@rcs1000 - when do you think interest rates will go up? I was intrigued to hear the Governor of the Bank of England talking down the possibility of an interest rate rise less than a week after three of the MPC voted for a rate rise.
It's funny, the worries about the housing market on here remind me of the worries about peak oil a decade ago.
We're going to have a similar switch in perspectives in the UK - and especially London - regarding house prices.
Between now and 2020, net immigration to the UK will turn negative. Partly that will be because we leave the EU, partly it's because our economy is very fragile and we're likely to hit a serious economic roadblock, partly it's because immigrants feel less welcome (see the dramatic drop in the number of EU nationals applying to be nurses in the UK), partly it will be because there is a natural number of EU citizens returning home, partly it will be because there will likely be some drop off in investment levels in the UK.
And this happens at the same time that an unprecedented amount of new housing comes on the market in London. There are now more residential units under construction in London that at any time since the immediate post war building boom.
Finally, of course, interest rates will rise.
All this has to be put against the backdrop of us not having the same number of children as historically. The UK TFR is 1.8. Now, that's better than Germany, but it's still more than 10% below replacement level.
In other words, absent immigration (which will be negative), the number of people in the UK will decline. Falling numbers of people, declining divorce rates, and an increased number of properties means dramatic falls in house prices. I really wouldn't advise being leveraged and long prime London real estate.
short term the biggest hit is the exchange rate, EU migrants have just had a 15% pay cut so repatriating earning just got harder
it might now be more economic to work at home
It's almost like free markets are naturally self correcting.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Interesting, seems the DUP have indeed overplayed their hand slightly - what would happen in NI if there was a snap election ?
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Perhaps the PM has realised that the DUP will abstain at worst rather than let JC in.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Interesting, seems the DUP have indeed overplayed their hand slightly - what would happen in NI if there was a snap election ?
May is going to call a snap election? She must like them.
I suppose we cant talk about barclays now but what are the actually charged with?
One of the allegations is that Barclays lent money to Qatar to buy Barclays shares which is illegal.
Is that not "funny money" but i suppose its one step to far. I feel sorry for the jury sixmonths and the trial collapses. Maybe one of the few cases of judge panels being better to understand the issues.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Interesting, seems the DUP have indeed overplayed their hand slightly - what would happen in NI if there was a snap election ?
An Assembly election would be a monumental triumph for the DUP.
A general election would probably only see two seats change hands. I think quite confidently that South Belfast would fall to Sinn Fein. I also think an early poll gives SDLP a great chance to regain Foyle.
But that single seat plus the loss of this particularly advantageous situation would combined be a total disaster for the DUP.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Fine until reality intrudes on your pipe dreams and leaves you and your compatriots in an even worse position. Real, rather than relative, poverty is almost (but not entirely) non existent in Britain. Things can and will get far, far worse under someone like Corbyn. When the country is like Greece and can no longer afford to pay for medicines then it is people like you who will be responsible.
Care to bet on these predictions of doom under Corbyn? Say £20 (or $ if you prefer) to a charity of my/your choice?
I can't see how you can bet on such things. How do we judge just how bad is disastrous? If you want to bet on the UK going into recession if Corbyn becomes PM then I am fine with that. If you want to bet on us losing ratings with the agencies then that as well.
FPT - okay how about this. If Corbyn wins a majority and is in government for a minimum of two years and the economy is not already in recession before he takes over:
Then if there is a recession whilst he is PM I will pay £20 to a charity of your choice. If there is no recession - you can give £20 to UNICEF?
If any of the initial clauses don't hold then bet is void.
Happy? Is that clear or does it need some modification?
I prefer recession to ratings agency... Feels more objective.
Yep that seems a reasonable bet to me. Actually I am happy with UNICEF as well. That way whoever loses they win. I always forget, which of the Peter's do we use as the Guardian of the Bet?
@CarlottaVance - When I saw "trouble in Brussels" I assumed Junker or someone had said something provocative. I wish that it had been something like that...
Is there a reason Cable is 1.64/1.9 on Betfair to be next Lib Dem leader?
Because he will in all probability win
There was a poll of over 2000 LD members, it's on Wikipedia showing Lamb 1% ahead of Cable if all potential candidates are included. If it's just down to Cable and Lamb with the others excluded, Lamb is 4% ahead of Cable.
Both Lamb and Cable are from the SDP wing of the party but I would have thought the majority of their members come from the old Liberal wing. Former leader Charles Kennedy also came from the SDP.
We shall see , I think the Swinsonites will mostly back Cable as the way to a Swinson succession in 3 or so years time .
While I'm very much in favour of taking ownership of the Coalition benefits and negatives, appointing as leader the Secretary of State who piloted through the tuition fees changes and then privatized the Post Office... well...
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Interesting, seems the DUP have indeed overplayed their hand slightly - what would happen in NI if there was a snap election ?
An Assembly election would be a monumental triumph for the DUP.
A general election would probably only see two seats change hands. I think quite confidently that South Belfast would fall to Sinn Fein. I also think an early poll gives SDLP a great chance to regain Foyle.
But that single seat plus the loss of this particularly advantageous situation would combined be a total disaster for the DUP.
yes but Ulsters answer to Diane Abbott isnt very good with numbers
Fine until reality intrudes on your pipe dreams and leaves you and your compatriots in an even worse position. Real, rather than relative, poverty is almost (but not entirely) non existent in Britain. Things can and will get far, far worse under someone like Corbyn. When the country is like Greece and can no longer afford to pay for medicines then it is people like you who will be responsible.
Care to bet on these predictions of doom under Corbyn? Say £20 (or $ if you prefer) to a charity of my/your choice?
I can't see how you can bet on such things. How do we judge just how bad is disastrous? If you want to bet on the UK going into recession if Corbyn becomes PM then I am fine with that. If you want to bet on us losing ratings with the agencies then that as well.
FPT - okay how about this. If Corbyn wins a majority and is in government for a minimum of two years and the economy is not already in recession before he takes over:
Then if there is a recession whilst he is PM I will pay £20 to a charity of your choice. If there is no recession - you can give £20 to UNICEF?
If any of the initial clauses don't hold then bet is void.
Happy? Is that clear or does it need some modification?
I prefer recession to ratings agency... Feels more objective.
Yep that seems a reasonable bet to me. Actually I am happy with UNICEF as well. That way whoever loses they win. I always forget, which of the Peter's do we use as the Guardian of the Bet?
In Outer London the problem is the opposite - value is maximised by building lots of one- and two-bed flats, many sold to BTL investors, whereas the community need is for family housing.
That is genuinely surprising. The Executive House building problem is so ubiquitous in the shires and the provision of starter homes so poor that I had never thought it would be any different in London.
Mind you I find the whole concept of living in and around London to be strange. I am 1 hour 15 minutes from London on the train. Straight into Kings Cross. The East Coast Main Line station is 15 minutes drive from me. I can buy a very decent 4 or 5 bedroom house here for probably less than people will pay in the London suburbs for a small semi and would probably be in work before them on a normal day (if I worked in London).
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
We actually don't, house prices have plateaued, what we need is an effective transfer of 2.5m homes from private landlords to first time buyers. That still leaves a reasonable private rental market but at the same time the leeching of younger people's income by older people won't be as bad. The Tory party needs to get ahead of the game here or Corbyn will win and introduce huge property taxes on primary residences to build social housing for rent, entrenching Labour's advantage.
Max, the problem is your solution just shuffles houses between one setting and another without changing the number available. If there were, for example, 5,000 houses available to rent and 5,000 available to buy, there's 10,000 available. Shifting 3,000 from "to rent" to "to buy" still leaves 10,000 available - just distributed differently.
If you have 12,000 people wanting to live in that area, you have a scarcity of housing. This leads to rationing. At the moment, those 12,000 will chase both the rental and to-buy sectors. With more buyers than sellers, the sellers will raise prices until you get to the point that only 10,000 of those 12,000 are willing and able to pay - whether rental or purchase. If the rental sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the purchase sector; if the purchase sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the rental sector.
So, say we've got 6,000 people chasing 5,000 rental spaces, and 6,000 people chasing 5,000 homes to buy. In both sectors, prices will rise until 1,000 people walk away, unable or unwilling to pay that much (because it's a sellers market - if you're not willing to pay that much, I'll sell it to someone who is).
You advocate making a change that will effectively shift a bunch of rental properties into the purchase section (say 3,000 rental landlords leave the sector due to this and sell up). You now have 8,000 purchase properties and, on the face of it, 6,000 wanting to buy. Result!
Except... you have 2,000 rental properties and 6,000 wanting to rent. Rather than skyrocket the remaining rents, renters will shift to the purchase sector (which is what you want, anyway) - until the balance between the costs is similar again (and the net flow ceases). So you'll have maybe 9,600 purchasers chasing 8,000 properties and 2,400 renters chasing 2,000 rental properties (the same percentage undersupply again). You've changed nothing - the power is still with the sellers, we still need to ration properties somehow, and prices still rise to the point where 2,000 of the 10,000 are unwilling or unable to pay - exactly the same as before.
Solutions that don't involve building enough houses where people want to buy them are perpetual motion mirages.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Interesting, seems the DUP have indeed overplayed their hand slightly - what would happen in NI if there was a snap election ?
An Assembly election would be a monumental triumph for the DUP.
A general election would probably only see two seats change hands. I think quite confidently that South Belfast would fall to Sinn Fein. I also think an early poll gives SDLP a great chance to regain Foyle.
But that single seat plus the loss of this particularly advantageous situation would combined be a total disaster for the DUP.
I can't see SF winning South Belfast. I don't see where another 6,000 votes would come from. If the SDLP vanished, some would go over to SF, but loads would go to Alliance, Green, or even UUP.
Re the last thread, I think mass home-ownership as a thing in this country (for the future) is dead. As a nation we are going to have to change the way we see renting, and improve the situation for private renters, and it's as simple as that. Other European nations such as Germany have a high number of renters, and they don't seem to see it as a form of slavery - which is almost the way renting was characterised in the last thread.
I don't think the people, most of whom would have grown up in owned homes, will accept it.
Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed. Arguably renting is more flexible. It is just that Britons have got so used to property as investment/speculation that they forget its real function.
This needs to be etched on peoples' foreheads: Whether rented or purchased the same number of housing units are needed
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
We actually don't, house prices have plateaued, what we need is an effective transfer of 2.5m homes from private landlords to first time buyers. That still leaves a reasonable private rental market but at the same time the leeching of younger people's income by older people won't be as bad. The Tory party needs to get ahead of the game here or Corbyn will win and introduce huge property taxes on primary residences to build social housing for rent, entrenching Labour's advantage.
If it came to it would the SNP and LIb Dems risk putting Corbyn into number 10? Might they abstain on crucial votes to avoid this until the threat diminishes?
The SNP would. The Lib Dems would have a serious think
The SNP and LibDems would be toxified if they abstained to help prop up the Tories. I am sure the SNP know this , and it is difficult to see the LibDems wishing to confirm their status as 'the Tories' little helpers'.
Is there a reason Cable is 1.64/1.9 on Betfair to be next Lib Dem leader?
Because he will in all probability win
There was a poll of over 2000 LD members, it's on Wikipedia showing Lamb 1% ahead of Cable if all potential candidates are included. If it's just down to Cable and Lamb with the others excluded, Lamb is 4% ahead of Cable.
Both Lamb and Cable are from the SDP wing of the party but I would have thought the majority of their members come from the old Liberal wing. Former leader Charles Kennedy also came from the SDP.
No Lamb was a Liberal councillor in Norwich prior to the merger.
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
entrenching Labour's advantage.
Max, the problem is your solution just shuffles houses between one setting and another without changing the number available. If there were, for example, 5,000 houses available to rent and 5,000 available to buy, there's 10,000 available. Shifting 3,000 from "to rent" to "to buy" still leaves 10,000 available - just distributed differently.
If you have 12,000 people wanting to live in that area, you have a scarcity of housing. This leads to rationing. At the moment, those 12,000 will chase both the rental and to-buy sectors. With more buyers than sellers, the sellers will raise prices until you get to the point that only 10,000 of those 12,000 are willing and able to pay - whether rental or purchase. If the rental sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the purchase sector; if the purchase sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the rental sector.
So, say we've got 6,000 people chasing 5,000 rental spaces, and 6,000 people chasing 5,000 homes to buy. In both sectors, prices will rise until 1,000 people walk away, unable or unwilling to pay that much (because it's a sellers market - if you're not willing to pay that much, I'll sell it to someone who is).
You advocate making a change that will effectively shift a bunch of rental properties into the purchase section (say 3,000 rental landlords leave the sector due to this and sell up). You now have 8,000 purchase properties and, on the face of it, 6,000 wanting to buy. Result!
Except... you have 2,000 rental properties and 6,000 wanting to rent. Rather than skyrocket the remaining rents, renters will shift to the purchase sector (which is what you want, anyway) - until the balance between the costs is similar again (and the net flow ceases). So you'll have maybe 9,600 purchasers chasing 8,000 properties and 2,400 renters chasing 2,000 rental properties (the same percentage undersupply again). You've changed nothing - the power is still with the sellers, we still need to ration properties somehow, and prices still rise to the point where 2,000 of the 10,000 are unwilling or unable to pay - exactly the same as before.
Solutions that don't involve building enough houses where people want to buy them are perpetual motion mirages.
If the English population are having less children, why are we in such dire need of more housing?
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save
Interesting, seems the DUP have indeed overplayed their hand slightly - what would happen in NI if there was a snap election ?
An Assembly election would be a monumental triumph for the DUP.
A general election would probably only see two seats change hands. I think quite confidently that South Belfast would fall to Sinn Fein. I also think an early poll gives SDLP a great chance to regain Foyle.
But that single seat plus the loss of this particularly advantageous situation would combined be a total disaster for the DUP.
I can't see SF winning South Belfast. I don't see where another 6,000 votes would come from. If the SDLP vanished, some would go over to SF, but loads would go to Alliance, Green, or even UUP.
I'd love to be wrong but the evidence is that SDLP vote drops to SF. I even think Foyle will be beyond SDLP if this Parliament goes past a couple of years.
You just look at the UUP and SDLP vote in any seat where they were not defending the seat. Massacred. Absolutely massacred.
Alasdair McDonnell said to me in October that we (UUP and SDLP) need to work together as the people of reason. But sadly the electorate is going entirely the other way.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Interesting, seems the DUP have indeed overplayed their hand slightly - what would happen in NI if there was a snap election ?
The DUP have stated they'll vote for the QS. That weakens their hand to an extent, but also makes them a more reliable negotiating partner.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Perhaps the PM has realised that the DUP will abstain at worst rather than let JC in.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
These facts were obvious on June 9th. Yet somehow May put no thought into this at all beyond "we need the DUP to have a majority" and announced her strategy without pausing for breath. She really is useless.
All she actually needed to was take a few days off, compose the Queen's Speech, and then invite Arlene for a chat about whether she would support it.
Maybe a DUP deal is still the best option for May, but the negotiations should've taken place AFTER the QS.
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
entrenching Labour's advantage.
Max, the problem is your solution just shuffles houses between one setting and another without changing the number available. If there were, for example, 5,000 houses available to rent and 5,000 available to buy, there's 10,000 available. Shifting 3,000 from "to rent" to "to buy" still leaves 10,000 available - just distributed differently.
If you have 12,000 people wanting to live in that area, you have a scarcity of housing. This leads to rationing. At the moment, those 12,000 will chase both the rental and to-buy sectors. With more buyers than sellers, the sellers will raise prices until you get to the point that only 10,000 of those 12,000 are willing and able to pay - whether rental or purchase. If the rental sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the purchase sector; if the purchase sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the rental sector.
So, say we've got 6,000 people chasing 5,000 rental spaces, and 6,000 people chasing 5,000 homes to buy. In both sectors, prices will rise until 1,000 people walk away, unable or unwilling to pay that much (because it's a sellers market - if you're not willing to pay that much, I'll sell it to someone who is).
You advocate making a change that will effectively shift a bunch of rental properties into the purchase section (say 3,000 rental landlords leave the sector due to this and sell up). You now have 8,000 purchase properties and, on the face of it, 6,000 wanting to buy. Result!
Except... you have 2,000 rental properties and 6,000 wanting to rent. Rather than skyrocket the remaining rents, renters will shift to the purchase sector (which is what you want, anyway) - until the balance between the costs is similar again (and the net flow ceases). So you'll have maybe 9,600 purchasers chasing 8,000 properties and 2,400 renters chasing 2,000 rental properties (the same percentage undersupply again). You've changed nothing - the power is still with the sellers, we still need to ration properties somehow, and prices still rise to the point where 2,000 of the 10,000 are unwilling or unable to pay - exactly the same as before.
Solutions that don't involve building enough houses where people want to buy them are perpetual motion mirages.
If the English population are having less children, why are we in such dire need of more housing?
People living longer, people staying single or divorcing more, the wealthy buying multiple homes...
Max, the problem is your solution just shuffles houses between one setting and another without changing the number available. If there were, for example, 5,000 houses available to rent and 5,000 available to buy, there's 10,000 available. Shifting 3,000 from "to rent" to "to buy" still leaves 10,000 available - just distributed differently.
If you have 12,000 people wanting to live in that area, you have a scarcity of housing. This leads to rationing. At the moment, those 12,000 will chase both the rental and to-buy sectors. With more buyers than sellers, the sellers will raise prices until you get to the point that only 10,000 of those 12,000 are willing and able to pay - whether rental or purchase. If the rental sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the purchase sector; if the purchase sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the rental sector.
So, say we've got 6,000 people chasing 5,000 rental spaces, and 6,000 people chasing 5,000 homes to buy. In both sectors, prices will rise until 1,000 people walk away, unable or unwilling to pay that much (because it's a sellers market - if you're not willing to pay that much, I'll sell it to someone who is).
You advocate making a change that will effectively shift a bunch of rental properties into the purchase section (say 3,000 rental landlords leave the sector due to this and sell up). You now have 8,000 purchase properties and, on the face of it, 6,000 wanting to buy. Result!
Except... you have 2,000 rental properties and 6,000 wanting to rent. Rather than skyrocket the remaining rents, renters will shift to the purchase sector (which is what you want, anyway) - until the balance between the costs is similar again (and the net flow ceases). So you'll have maybe 9,600 purchasers chasing 8,000 properties and 2,400 renters chasing 2,000 rental properties (the same percentage undersupply again). You've changed nothing - the power is still with the sellers, we still need to ration properties somehow, and prices still rise to the point where 2,000 of the 10,000 are unwilling or unable to pay - exactly the same as before.
Solutions that don't involve building enough houses where people want to buy them are perpetual motion mirages.
If the English population are having less children, why are we in such dire need of more housing?
Housing isn't immortal. 25 million housing units in Britain. If each lasts an average of 100 years we need 250,000 per year just to stand still. We've averaged 100,000-150,000 per year for the past decade or so, so just on standstill rates, we're a good million or more short of where we should be. And we've had a large amount of immigration that we're not exactly going to deport, and not bothered to keep up with the housing for it. And we live longer and longer.
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
entrenching Labour's advantage.
Max, the problem is your solution just shuffles houses between one setting and another without changing the number available. If there were, for example, 5,000 houses available to rent and 5,000 available to buy, there's 10,000 available. Shifting 3,000 from "to rent" to "to buy" still leaves 10,000 available - just distributed differently.
If you have 12,000 people wanting to live in that area, you have a scarcity of housing. This leads to rationing. At the moment, those 12,000 will chase both the rental and to-buy sectors. With more buyers than sellers, the sellers will raise prices until you get to the point that only 10,000 of those 12,000 are willing and able to pay - whether rental or purchase. If the rental sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the purchase sector; if the purchase sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the rental sector.
So, say we've got 6,000 people chasing 5,000 rental spaces, and 6,000 people chasing 5,000 homes to buy. In both sectors, prices will rise until 1,000 people walk away, unable or unwilling to pay that much (because it's a sellers market - if you're not willing to pay that much, I'll sell it to someone who is).
You advocate making a change that will effectively shift a bunch of rental properties into the purchase section (say 3,000 rental landlords leave the sector due to this and sell up). You now have 8,000 purchase properties and, on the face of it, 6,000 wanting to buy. Result!
Except... you have 2,000 rental properties and 6,000 wanting to rent. Rather than skyrocket the remaining rents, renters will shift to the purchase sector (which is what you want, anyway) - until the balance between the costs is similar again (and the net flow ceases). So you'll have maybe 9,600 purchasers chasing 8,000 properties and 2,400 renters chasing 2,000 rental properties (the same percentage undersupply again). You've changed nothing - the power is still with the sellers, we still need to ration properties somehow, and prices still rise to the point where 2,000 of the 10,000 are unwilling or unable to pay - exactly the same as before.
Solutions that don't involve building enough houses where people want to buy them are perpetual motion mirages.
If the English population are having less children, why are we in such dire need of more housing?
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save
Interesting, seems the DUP have indeed overplayed their hand slightly - what would happen in NI if there was a snap election ?
An Assembly election would be a monumental triumph for the DUP.
A general election would probably only see two seats change hands. I think quite confidently that South Belfast would fall to Sinn Fein. I also think an early poll gives SDLP a great chance to regain Foyle.
But that single seat plus the loss of this particularly advantageous situation would combined be a total disaster for the DUP.
I can't see SF winning South Belfast. I don't see where another 6,000 votes would come from. If the SDLP vanished, some would go over to SF, but loads would go to Alliance, Green, or even UUP.
I'd love to be wrong but the evidence is that SDLP vote drops to SF. I even think Foyle will be beyond SDLP if this Parliament goes past a couple of years.
You just look at the UUP and SDLP vote in any seat where they were not defending the seat. Massacred. Absolutely massacred.
Alasdair McDonnell said to me in October that we (UUP and SDLP) need to work together as the people of reason. But sadly the electorate is going entirely the other way.
I think South Belfast is rather different. Too middle class to back Sinn Fein. I agree with your last paragraph, though.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Perhaps the PM has realised that the DUP will abstain at worst rather than let JC in.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
These facts were obvious on June 9th. Yet somehow May put no thought into this at all beyond "we need the DUP to have a majority" and announced her strategy without pausing for breath. She really is useless.
All she actually needed to was take a few days off, compose the Queen's Speech, and then invite Arlene for a chat about whether she would support it.
Maybe a DUP deal is still the best option for May, but the negotiations should've taken place AFTER the QS.
It's helpful to tie down an arrangement with the DUP.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Perhaps the PM has realised that the DUP will abstain at worst rather than let JC in.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
These facts were obvious on June 9th. Yet somehow May put no thought into this at all beyond "we need the DUP to have a majority" and announced her strategy without pausing for breath. She really is useless.
All she actually needed to was take a few days off, compose the Queen's Speech, and then invite Arlene for a chat about whether she would support it.
Maybe a DUP deal is still the best option for May, but the negotiations should've taken place AFTER the QS.
It's helpful to tie down an arrangement with the DUP.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Perhaps the PM has realised that the DUP will abstain at worst rather than let JC in.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
These facts were obvious on June 9th. Yet somehow May put no thought into this at all beyond "we need the DUP to have a majority" and announced her strategy without pausing for breath. She really is useless.
All she actually needed to was take a few days off, compose the Queen's Speech, and then invite Arlene for a chat about whether she would support it.
Maybe a DUP deal is still the best option for May, but the negotiations should've taken place AFTER the QS.
It's helpful to tie down an arrangement with the DUP.
NO SURRENDER to the DUP!
That is the hand which the voters have dealt the politicians.
Yup. Whatever we do we need to build more sodding houses.
entrenching Labour's advantage.
Max, the problem is your solution just shuffles houses between one setting and another without changing the number available. If there were, for example, 5,000 houses available to rent and 5,000 available to buy, there's 10,000 available. Shifting 3,000 from "to rent" to "to buy" still leaves 10,000 available - just distributed differently.
If you have 12,000 people wanting to live in that area, you have a scarcity of housing. This leads to rationing. At the moment, those 12,000 will chase both the rental and to-buy sectors. With more buyers than sellers, the sellers will raise prices until you get to the point that only 10,000 of those 12,000 are willing and able to pay - whether rental or purchase. If the rental sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the purchase sector; if the purchase sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the rental sector.
So, say we've got 6,000 people chasing 5,000 rental spaces, and 6,000 people chasing 5,000 homes to buy. In both sectors, prices will rise until 1,000 people walk away, unable or unwilling to pay that much (because it's a sellers market - if you're not willing to pay that much, I'll sell it to someone who is).
You advocate making a change that will effectively shift a bunch of rental properties into the purchase section (say 3,000 rental landlords leave the sector due to this and sell up). You now have 8,000 purchase properties and, on the face of it, 6,000 wanting to buy. Result!
Except... you have 2,000 rental properties and 6,000 wanting to rent. Rather than skyrocket the remaining rents, renters will shift to the purchase sector (which is what you want, anyway) - until the balance between the costs is similar again (and the net flow ceases). So you'll have maybe 9,600 purchasers chasing 8,000 properties and 2,400 renters chasing 2,000 rental properties (the same percentage undersupply again). You've changed nothing - the power is still with the sellers, we still need to ration properties somehow, and prices still rise to the point where 2,000 of the 10,000 are unwilling or unable to pay - exactly the same as before.
Solutions that don't involve building enough houses where people want to buy them are perpetual motion mirages.
If the English population are having less children, why are we in such dire need of more housing?
People living longer, people staying single or divorcing more, the wealthy buying multiple homes...
VAT is currently on extensions to houses .New housing is VAT free maybe we should put VAT on new houses that are built with 4 bedrooms or over , to encourage smaller builds for first time buyers.
Waive CGT on property sold to tenants in residence.
Incentivises landlords to sell and indeed give a discount, but only to the tenants. Sell to another landlord and you pay CGT.
VAT is currently on extensions to houses .New housing is VAT free maybe we should put VAT on new houses that are built with 4 bedrooms or over , to encourage smaller builds for first time buyers.
Waive CGT on property sold to tenants in residence.
Incentivises landlords to sell and indeed give a discount, but only to the tenants. Sell to another landlord and you pay CGT.
Sorted.
Your solution to the problem is to give a tax incentive to landlords if they sell?
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Perhaps the PM has realised that the DUP will abstain at worst rather than let JC in.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
These facts were obvious on June 9th. Yet somehow May put no thought into this at all beyond "we need the DUP to have a majority" and announced her strategy without pausing for breath. She really is useless.
All she actually needed to was take a few days off, compose the Queen's Speech, and then invite Arlene for a chat about whether she would support it.
Maybe a DUP deal is still the best option for May, but the negotiations should've taken place AFTER the QS.
It's helpful to tie down an arrangement with the DUP.
NO SURRENDER to the DUP!
That is the hand which the voters have dealt the politicians.
VAT is currently on extensions to houses .New housing is VAT free maybe we should put VAT on new houses that are built with 4 bedrooms or over , to encourage smaller builds for first time buyers.
Waive CGT on property sold to tenants in residence.
Incentivises landlords to sell and indeed give a discount, but only to the tenants. Sell to another landlord and you pay CGT.
Sorted.
Your solution to the problem is to give a tax incentive to landlords if they sell?
Seriously?
A tax cut that encourages divestment sounds like a good start....
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Perhaps the PM has realised that the DUP will abstain at worst rather than let JC in.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
These facts were obvious on June 9th. Yet somehow May put no thought into this at all beyond "we need the DUP to have a majority" and announced her strategy without pausing for breath. She really is useless.
All she actually needed to was take a few days off, compose the Queen's Speech, and then invite Arlene for a chat about whether she would support it.
Maybe a DUP deal is still the best option for May, but the negotiations should've taken place AFTER the QS.
It's helpful to tie down an arrangement with the DUP.
NO SURRENDER to the DUP!
DUP 10 seats SF 7 seats (not turning up to Westminster)
Is there a reason Cable is 1.64/1.9 on Betfair to be next Lib Dem leader?
Because he will in all probability win
There was a poll of over 2000 LD members, it's on Wikipedia showing Lamb 1% ahead of Cable if all potential candidates are included. If it's just down to Cable and Lamb with the others excluded, Lamb is 4% ahead of Cable. Both Lamb and Cable are from the SDP wing of the party but I would have thought the majority of their members come from the old Liberal wing. Former leader Charles Kennedy also came from the SDP.
No, Lamb was a Liberal councillor in Norwich prior to the merger.
Wrong again, Mr DeClare. The majority of Lib Dem members joined at some time in the last 28 years - when the Liberal Party and the SDP merged into one. They did not belong to either of the merging parties first.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Perhaps the PM has realised that the DUP will abstain at worst rather than let JC in.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
These facts were obvious on June 9th. Yet somehow May put no thought into this at all beyond "we need the DUP to have a majority" and announced her strategy without pausing for breath. She really is useless.
All she actually needed to was take a few days off, compose the Queen's Speech, and then invite Arlene for a chat about whether she would support it.
Maybe a DUP deal is still the best option for May, but the negotiations should've taken place AFTER the QS.
It's helpful to tie down an arrangement with the DUP.
NO SURRENDER to the DUP!
That is the hand which the voters have dealt the politicians.
As photoshopped pictures of politicians appear to be all the rage I wonder what happens if you photomerge Arlene and Theresa? I saved this question until after the watershed.
It seems that in order to get cheap Labour into the country en masse, the powers that be were prepared to turn a blind eye to the ridiculous housing conditions these pawns in the game had to live in. Lord knows how many died at Grenfell or how many houses the public sector will have to build with our money to eventually house them.
VAT is currently on extensions to houses .New housing is VAT free maybe we should put VAT on new houses that are built with 4 bedrooms or over , to encourage smaller builds for first time buyers.
Waive CGT on property sold to tenants in residence.
Incentivises landlords to sell and indeed give a discount, but only to the tenants. Sell to another landlord and you pay CGT.
Sorted.
Your solution to the problem is to give a tax incentive to landlords if they sell?
Seriously?
Landlords who sell their property to a tenant taking a property out of the landlord market and into the home ownership market. Sounds like an ingenious solution actually, what's wrong with that?
You want to disincentivise landlords from selling to tenants?
If it came to it would the SNP and LIb Dems risk putting Corbyn into number 10? Might they abstain on crucial votes to avoid this until the threat diminishes?
The SNP would. The Lib Dems would have a serious think
The SNP and LibDems would be toxified if they abstained to help prop up the Tories. I am sure the SNP know this , and it is difficult to see the LibDems wishing to confirm their status as 'the Tories' little helpers'.
It seems that in order to get cheap Labour into the country en masse, the powers that be were prepared to turn a blind eye to the ridiculous housing conditions these pawns in the game had to live in. Lord knows how many died at Grenfell or how many houses the public sector will have to build with our money to eventually house them.
There will be bodies that are never claimed nor identified.
I see Arlene Foster suffered a complete memory lapse about a letter she sent the Scottish government on the topic of Gay Marriage. Scottish government helps prod her memory by publishing letter.
The DUP appears to be playing hard ball with Mrs Mayhem as well.
They probably want a new motorway or airport or something.
When John major needed their votes in the 1990s he had to give them cheaper electricity, he was privatising the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at the time and they were not happy about their power prices being higher than the average price in the rest of the UK.
The vote wasn't anything to do with electricity, it might have been to do with EU fishing quotas I think.
It is pretty amazing that the QS was delayed so the deal could be in place and yet the QS might still happen without the deal. I can only assume that the DUP is overplaying its hand. It is a strange negotiating situation. The Tories can surely survive without a deal, since the DUP is unlikely to want to force a general election. So the Tories will want to do the deal on the cheap. I suppose that the DUP will worry that such a deal will look insulting. So it's a question of padding the deal out with enough cubic zirconia so their supporters have something shiny to be dazzled by.
I think enough people like me put the word out that the DUP cards were actually crap and May finally realised that. I wonder if Arlene is now working out how to save face.
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
Perhaps the PM has realised that the DUP will abstain at worst rather than let JC in.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
These facts were obvious on June 9th. Yet somehow May put no thought into this at all beyond "we need the DUP to have a majority" and announced her strategy without pausing for breath. She really is useless.
All she actually needed to was take a few days off, compose the Queen's Speech, and then invite Arlene for a chat about whether she would support it.
Maybe a DUP deal is still the best option for May, but the negotiations should've taken place AFTER the QS.
It's helpful to tie down an arrangement with the DUP.
NO SURRENDER to the DUP!
That is the hand which the voters have dealt the politicians.
VAT is currently on extensions to houses .New housing is VAT free maybe we should put VAT on new houses that are built with 4 bedrooms or over , to encourage smaller builds for first time buyers.
New five bedroom homes help first time buyers indirectly if someone who had a 3 or 4 bedroom home sells it in order to move up the property ladder. Your proposal would cause a housing equivalent of "bed blocking".
VAT is currently on extensions to houses .New housing is VAT free maybe we should put VAT on new houses that are built with 4 bedrooms or over , to encourage smaller builds for first time buyers.
Waive CGT on property sold to tenants in residence.
Incentivises landlords to sell and indeed give a discount, but only to the tenants. Sell to another landlord and you pay CGT.
Sorted.
Your solution to the problem is to give a tax incentive to landlords if they sell?
Seriously?
Landlords who sell their property to a tenant taking a property out of the landlord market and into the home ownership market. Sounds like an ingenious solution actually, what's wrong with that?
You want to disincentivise landlords from selling to tenants?
Would have to be for existing landlord only - and a one off - otherwise would become an industry .
Comments
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/real-estate-the-business-cycle/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/stock-indicies/dow-jones/the-most-hated-bull-market-in-history/
2006 definitely voted for Huhne over Ming
2007 genuinely can't remember but suspect I stuck with Huhne. Would have voted for Lynne Featherstone in a heartbeat.
2015 I was so disillusioned I didn't bother to vote. Would have probably gone Farron.
2017 Still disillusioned! Still have a vote just about, but not inspired by any of them. Where's the candidate with the sense of humour? Would have voted for Clegg if he'd not felt the electorate's boot.
Then if there is a recession whilst he is PM I will pay £20 to a charity of your choice.
If there is no recession - you can give £20 to UNICEF?
If any of the initial clauses don't hold then bet is void.
Happy? Is that clear or does it need some modification?
I prefer recession to ratings agency... Feels more objective.
We could do a tenner on that and a tenner on no recession?
George Osborne's tax changes particularly on BTL were classic government, a tax raid on an attractive sector, and the revenue projections classically assumed that behaviour would remain unchanged - well it didn't and the exchequer has raised a lot less than they thought they would. Classic socialist / marxist thinking there from a Conservative government. They'll save us from the nightmare of a Corbyn / McDonnell government won't they? You'd better not believe it!
it might now be more economic to work at home
Mind you I find the whole concept of living in and around London to be strange. I am 1 hour 15 minutes from London on the train. Straight into Kings Cross. The East Coast Main Line station is 15 minutes drive from me. I can buy a very decent 4 or 5 bedroom house here for probably less than people will pay in the London suburbs for a small semi and would probably be in work before them on a normal day (if I worked in London).
Planners seem to have approved hundreds and hundreds of new flats with absolutely ZERO investment in roads or other infrastructure.
I'm trying to get out but my flat has been difficult to sell and there are several blocks being constructed right now.
It really feels that planners are trying to cram as many small flats into Borehamwood as possible to keep the rest of Hertsmere all nice.
& Yes I tried to personally save Clegg but always realised he was in danger to Labour at the GE
More than one party stands to lose more than the Tories in another election. The party that stands to lose most is clearly the DUP. I think they have overplayed a pair of jacks.
they deserve everything they get
Not a Progress type though so will be a good addition.
That's good news, surely, as it suggests she is finally reading PB for ideas.
Lamb, Cable, Davey and Swinson make a decent top four, and indeed would probably do so if they went into coalition with the Tories.
Is a coalition possibility? I ask our resident expert on all things yellow (and closet Corbynista) Mark Senior.
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/877240999323607041
A general election would probably only see two seats change hands. I think quite confidently that South Belfast would fall to Sinn Fein. I also think an early poll gives SDLP a great chance to regain Foyle.
But that single seat plus the loss of this particularly advantageous situation would combined be a total disaster for the DUP.
Not sure about which Peter....
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40343897
http://news.sky.com/story/india-arrests-15-people-for-celebrating-pakistan-cricket-teams-win-10921376
Someone posted on here the other day that they are 7% or less ahead in 23 out of the 35 (approx.) They would lose all those.
If you have 12,000 people wanting to live in that area, you have a scarcity of housing. This leads to rationing. At the moment, those 12,000 will chase both the rental and to-buy sectors. With more buyers than sellers, the sellers will raise prices until you get to the point that only 10,000 of those 12,000 are willing and able to pay - whether rental or purchase. If the rental sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the purchase sector; if the purchase sector gets too expensive, people will shift to the rental sector.
So, say we've got 6,000 people chasing 5,000 rental spaces, and 6,000 people chasing 5,000 homes to buy. In both sectors, prices will rise until 1,000 people walk away, unable or unwilling to pay that much (because it's a sellers market - if you're not willing to pay that much, I'll sell it to someone who is).
You advocate making a change that will effectively shift a bunch of rental properties into the purchase section (say 3,000 rental landlords leave the sector due to this and sell up). You now have 8,000 purchase properties and, on the face of it, 6,000 wanting to buy. Result!
Except... you have 2,000 rental properties and 6,000 wanting to rent. Rather than skyrocket the remaining rents, renters will shift to the purchase sector (which is what you want, anyway) - until the balance between the costs is similar again (and the net flow ceases). So you'll have maybe 9,600 purchasers chasing 8,000 properties and 2,400 renters chasing 2,000 rental properties (the same percentage undersupply again). You've changed nothing - the power is still with the sellers, we still need to ration properties somehow, and prices still rise to the point where 2,000 of the 10,000 are unwilling or unable to pay - exactly the same as before.
Solutions that don't involve building enough houses where people want to buy them are perpetual motion mirages.
You just look at the UUP and SDLP vote in any seat where they were not defending the seat. Massacred. Absolutely massacred.
Alasdair McDonnell said to me in October that we (UUP and SDLP) need to work together as the people of reason. But sadly the electorate is going entirely the other way.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4622952/Explosion-reported-Brussels-central-station.html
All she actually needed to was take a few days off, compose the Queen's Speech, and then invite Arlene for a chat about whether she would support it.
Maybe a DUP deal is still the best option for May, but the negotiations should've taken place AFTER the QS.
And we've had a large amount of immigration that we're not exactly going to deport, and not bothered to keep up with the housing for it. And we live longer and longer.
oh the irony
https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/877253252731031552
Incentivises landlords to sell and indeed give a discount, but only to the tenants. Sell to another landlord and you pay CGT.
Sorted.
Seriously?
NEVER
NEVER!
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/gerard-coynes-unite-show-trial-stark-warning-labour-moderates/
SF 7 seats (not turning up to Westminster)
Immediately reduces the value of BTL properties
Landlords keen to sell
Lower prices makes it easier for people to buy as their prime residence
Sorted!!
You want to disincentivise landlords from selling to tenants?
It barely got a mention in the news when the SNP abstained last time.
BBC - General election 2017: SNP MPs to abstain in Commons vote
https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/875498901888958464
http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/06/20/news/scottish-government-publishes-arlene-foster-s-letter-on-gay-marriage-1061889/?param=ds441rif44T
In mug news I have an entire comedy Twitter thread planned out but it's going to involve video editing and all sorts of shit so it may take a while.