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 .
If an industry develops of getting property into the hands of homeowners rather than landlords then I don't see what the problem with that is.
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?
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?
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.
If you want mass migration, you have to be prepared to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it, by providing the migrants with good quality social housing and infrastructure.
But, perhaps that undermines the case for mass migration.
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.
If you want mass migration, you have to be prepared to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it, by providing the migrants with good quality social housing and infrastructure.
But, perhaps that undermines the case for mass migration.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
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.
If you want mass migration, you have to be prepared to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it, by providing the migrants with good quality social housing and infrastructure.
But, perhaps that undermines the case for mass migration.
Divide and rule from the elite. Inject masses of competitors for work into the poorest, overcrowded areas of the country, don't build enough homes, and watch them fight with each other for jobs, housing and resources while you rake in the dough. If anyone objects, call them racist xenophobes. No wonder the rich are so for it.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
Couldn't agree more. The secret behind all great fortune is a crime forgotten, as Balzac probably didn't say
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
But, that takes away the purpose of mass migration, which is to provide a large workforce prepared to work for low wages.
If I was LD leader, I would consider agreeing to help prop up your Government if you agreed to having a second referendum on Brexit and most importantly agree to reform our GE voting system from FPTP to STV. However I am not going to be LD leader and you seem to be hell bent on destroying yourselves without my help.
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.
If you want mass migration, you have to be prepared to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it, by providing the migrants with good quality social housing and infrastructure.
But, perhaps that undermines the case for mass migration.
Certainly two to four generations ago when there was mass migration from declining coalfields in South Wales, Scotland and the North-East to newer pits in Yorkshire and the Midlands new housing was built in advance together with extra facilities for health, education and recreation.
Which is a contrast now with unlimited immigration being deemed necessary to keep Pret-A-Manger's wage bill lower and with no provision for affordable housing or expanded public services.
I suggest a levy on businesses which have a certain level of migrant workers as employees in order to fund new housing. I suspect certain companies would discover that the locals are willing to do the work if that applied.
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.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
I don't see how you can square that circle at all. Free movement of people which includes countries that have 70% lower GDP per capita than ours will naturally attract low wage workers. Immigrants are economically rational, they will come for the wages and drive down living standards for the working poor as they are willing to accept lower wages and worse living standards given that so many are here on a temporary basis.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
whereabouts in London is it almost unlivable or is this a meaningless generalisation that is unsupported by the evidence of population movement?
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
whereabouts in London is it almost unlivable or is this a meaningless generalisation that is unsupported by the evidence of population movement?
I'm in Brussels at the moment - passed through Brussels Centre station a couple of hours ago and was surprised to meet a tourist later who said that her train hadn't stopped there (we're in Nord) and she'd heard an explosion and a shot. The story has got round now and people are discussing it with mild concern, much as one would a traffic accident - I think the terrorists are getting diminishing returns in the shock-horror department, especially when nobody appears to have been hurt except the supposed terrorist.
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).
Which county please?
All over. Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire where I am but I have seen the same down into Cambridgeshire and Leicestershire. The Growth Point scheme is tacking thousands of houses onto the sides of towns and very few of them are starter homes. Almost all are 4 or 5 bed developments
If I was LD leader, I would consider agreeing to help prop up your Government if you agreed to having a second referendum on Brexit and most importantly agree to reform our GE voting system from FPTP to STV. However I am not going to be LD leader and you seem to be hell bent on destroying yourselves without my help.
I'm in Brussels at the moment - passed through Brussels Centre station a couple of hours ago and was surprised to meet a tourist later who said that her train hadn't stopped there (we're in Nord) and she'd heard an explosion and a shot. The story has got round now and people are discussing it with mild concern, much as one would a traffic accident - I think the terrorists are getting diminishing returns in the shock-horror department, especially when nobody appears to have been hurt except the supposed terrorist.
Part & parcel of city life now eh Nick? All a bit 'meh' Lovely
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
whereabouts in London is it almost unlivable or is this a meaningless generalisation that is unsupported by the evidence of population movement?
I agree that this accommodation and others like it are unlivable but, even given the existence of many examples like this, that doesn't make the whole of London unlivable. We must be more diligent enforcing regulation.
If I was LD leader, I would consider agreeing to help prop up your Government if you agreed to having a second referendum on Brexit and most importantly agree to reform our GE voting system from FPTP to STV. However I am not going to be LD leader and you seem to be hell bent on destroying yourselves without my help.
As if the Tories would accept those conditions.
I suspect PR is inevitable sooner or later, especially if we keep getting GE results like the current one. So a brave party will eventually concede that I'm sure. But on Brexit, yeah..
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
Indeed, it's hilarious seeing all these Tories so nostalgic for the Golden Age of Coalition.
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.
No we don't.
We need nurses homes on NHS land, police and firemens homes like we used to have, and "convents" for single mothers - not necessarily religious but the same type of regime.
Frightening how the politicians of the previous generation are still so much more clued up than those of our own.
Not at all He was an arrogant lunatic when he was younger and now is just senile and malignant. I can't actually think of a single useful contribution he has made to political life in Britain.
Frightening how the politicians of the previous generation are still so much more clued up than those of our own.
Thing is, in the 80s a politician's living was probably an attractive option. In 24 hour twittersphere Britain, where every utterance from the last 20 years can be dragged up at press of a button and used against you I guess it's rather less so. Easier ways to mske a good living. Hence the Parade of Nonentities we have now.
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
I think that would be a mistake. It depends on the QS of course but LDs can also argue that the Tories clearly "won" and to force an immediate election or risk the undoubted dangers of Corbynism would be irresponsible. I'd be suprised if an immediate election would be popular with the majority of the population. It would be popular with the commited Labour voters but the LDs aren't going to win those votes anway. A grudging abstention position can be made to look like responsible statesmanship in the short term at least.
' More action is being taken to destroy 'beds in sheds' and other illegal buildings in Hounslow than almost anywhere else in the country, new figures suggest.
Hounslow Council has issued 144 enforcement notices ordering the destruction of unlawful building work including so-called 'beds in sheds' during the last 12 months, according to the latest government statistics.
That is more than any local authority in England except Newham (451), Westminster (212) and Brent (193). '
' High street estate agents are renting out so-called "beds in sheds" without residential planning permission, a BBC investigation has found.
Inside Out caught two companies - Hunters and Milestone - offering sub-standard housing on behalf of landlords.
Receipts show Milestone, in Willesden Green, had let a garage without windows to a young family.
When London councils began investigating this issue, it was common to see squalid shacks in back gardens, typically inhabited by numerous illegal immigrants.
A survey carried out by Brent Council turned up hundreds of outhouses built in this way.
Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, admitted: "There are probably hundreds more properties we are missing." '
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.
Is 100 years a reasonable average?
I grew up in a South London semi-detached that was built in the 1880s and structurally it was in good condition. I'd be surprised if that was not still the case. Provided the housing is still in the right location surely you'd expect the structure to last a couple of hundred years?
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
Indeed, it's hilarious seeing all these Tories so nostalgic for the Golden Age of Coalition...
... But you can understand why when you consider the relative stability of the coalition compared with the absolute shambles of the past two years of unfettered toryism!
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.
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.
No we don't.
We need nurses homes on NHS land, police and firemens homes like we used to have, and "convents" for single mothers - not necessarily religious but the same type of regime.
We certainly need to provide housing associated with work in the way you suggest. But that means more building on Brownfield. Get rid of VAT on land redevelopment. Get rid of VAT on redevelopment of existing properties. It is only 5% but that is still 5% more than you would pay on a new build on a greenfield site.
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.
Is 100 years a reasonable average?
I grew up in a South London semi-detached that was built in the 1880s and structurally it was in good condition. I'd be surprised if that was not still the case. Provided the housing is still in the right location surely you'd expect the structure to last a couple of hundred years?
Indeed, my family home was built in the late Victorian era iirc, still in excellent condition.
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
I think that would be a mistake. It depends on the QS of course but LDs can also argue that the Tories clearly "won" and to force an immediate election or risk the undoubted dangers of Corbynism would be irresponsible. I'd be suprised if an immediate election would be popular with the majority of the population. It would be popular with the commited Labour voters but the LDs aren't going to win those votes anway. A grudging abstention position can be made to look like responsible statesmanship in the short term at least.
There is no serious risk of the QS not being approved. Even if the DUP were to abstain TM will have a narrow majority.I really do not expect another election this year.
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.
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
I think that would be a mistake. It depends on the QS of course but LDs can also argue that the Tories clearly "won" and to force an immediate election or risk the undoubted dangers of Corbynism would be irresponsible. I'd be suprised if an immediate election would be popular with the majority of the population. It would be popular with the commited Labour voters but the LDs aren't going to win those votes anway. A grudging abstention position can be made to look like responsible statesmanship in the short term at least.
The LibDems would benefit from an early election winning perhaps another 4 or 5 seats. If it results in another minority government, which it probably would, the LibDems could position themselves as holding the minority government "on a leash" and only agreeing to legislation that was in line with LibDem principles.
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.
No we don't.
We need nurses homes on NHS land, police and firemens homes like we used to have, and "convents" for single mothers - not necessarily religious but the same type of regime.
For any proposal that's supposed to reduce shortages you have to ask, "does this use land (or sky) that would already have had residential planning permission, or is it newly-granted planning permission".
If it's already got planning permission then it won't help: Capitalism currently has no problem building houses if the government will allow them to do it. The government is building where the private sector would have built anyway.
If it hasn't, and the arm of the government that wants the house built is over-riding the various other branches of the government that want to stop houses being built, it can just do that part, which will solve the entire problem.
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
I think that would be a mistake. It depends on the QS of course but LDs can also argue that the Tories clearly "won" and to force an immediate election or risk the undoubted dangers of Corbynism would be irresponsible. I'd be suprised if an immediate election would be popular with the majority of the population. It would be popular with the commited Labour voters but the LDs aren't going to win those votes anway. A grudging abstention position can be made to look like responsible statesmanship in the short term at least.
Sorry but the LDs were slaughtered in 2015 for going into coalition. Propping the Tories up now with nothing really substantial in return is out of the question for the LDs. As stated below the price is for the Tories to accept changing the voting system to STV.
Ministers planning stocktake of Europeans living in the UK to gauge demand for residency applications
It is understood ministers will unveil plans inviting all EU citizens to officially “register their interest” in acquiring documentation allowing them to live and work in the country after 2019 when Britain is scheduled to leave the European bloc.
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.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
whereabouts in London is it almost unlivable or is this a meaningless generalisation that is unsupported by the evidence of population movement?
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
Indeed, it's hilarious seeing all these Tories so nostalgic for the Golden Age of Coalition...
... But you can understand why when you consider the relative stability of the coalition compared with the absolute shambles of the past two years of unfettered toryism!
Lol and the Tories shafted the LibDems confident they wouldn't need their help again for another generation...
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.
No we don't.
We need nurses homes on NHS land, police and firemens homes like we used to have, and "convents" for single mothers - not necessarily religious but the same type of regime.
We certainly need to provide housing associated with work in the way you suggest. But that means more building on Brownfield. Get rid of VAT on land redevelopment. Get rid of VAT on redevelopment of existing properties. It is only 5% but that is still 5% more than you would pay on a new build on a greenfield site.
When I was ten, my family moved from a slum in Oldham to a new council house in Bristol that was provided to my father as a benefit with his new job with Bristol Siddeley working on the Olympus engine for the Concorde. I don't know how that worked, who financed it etc. But it enabled our move and transformed our family prospects, and here I am in Barnes with very middle class children and grandchildren. I don't think that could happen today, and that's a pity.
It probably explains why I am still a working class Corbynista at heart!
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
whereabouts in London is it almost unlivable or is this a meaningless generalisation that is unsupported by the evidence of population movement?
I agree that this accommodation and others like it are unlivable but, even given the existence of many examples like this, that doesn't make the whole of London unlivable. We must be more diligent enforcing regulation.
What is unsustainable is the amount of work per £1 in wages that migrants from poor countries are prepared to do, hence the need for either a) appalling housing conditions, b) a never ending flow of migrants, or the status quo, c) both
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.
Is 100 years a reasonable average?
I grew up in a South London semi-detached that was built in the 1880s and structurally it was in good condition. I'd be surprised if that was not still the case. Provided the housing is still in the right location surely you'd expect the structure to last a couple of hundred years?
Depends when it was built. Some 20th century housing can be doing well to hit 50 or 60 years. I think the standard required a minimum of just 20 years.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
Couldn't agree more. The secret behind all great fortune is a crime forgotten, as Balzac probably didn't say
They are the necessary conditions to be able to pay migrants terrible wages for previously better paid jobs. Sweatshops that we sneer at abroad in our capital that the luvvies luv
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
Indeed, it's hilarious seeing all these Tories so nostalgic for the Golden Age of Coalition...
... But you can understand why when you consider the relative stability of the coalition compared with the absolute shambles of the past two years of unfettered toryism!
It does help make the case that the Coalition was not a Conservative government, but something different - which was harder for the Lib Dems to make in 2015 when there was no "control" comparison to make.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
Couldn't agree more. The secret behind all great fortune is a crime forgotten, as Balzac probably didn't say
*ahem*
South Sea Bubble
Well yes... I think Mike Atherton devotes a chapter in his book 'Gambling' to that
Housing and Planning. The most vexed, misunderstood, complex area of public policy there is.
The trouble is that people make the error of seperating out the idea of building housing, with all the supporting infrastructure that goes with it.
Supporting infrastructure = electricity, roads, gas, drains, sewers, schools, trains, busses, parks. and lots of other stuff as well.
It is very easy to build housing cheaply and profitably if you are housebuilder, as long as you don't have to pay very much for the infrastructure. In most cases, the true cost of the impact of development on infrastructure far exceeds the actual value of the homes being built.
So even if you can find a way of building say a million homes somewhere in the south east in a mythical place inside or outside the greenbelt, you would still have to find a way of funding the infrastructure to support it necessary, and over the lifetime of the development. At some point you also need to think about what kind of places you are making, are they places people want to live etc.
The fact is that there is scant government money and resource available for infrastructure. Furthermore the organisations that build the infrastructure are privatised companies with a profit motive, which makes the cost high and co-ordination difficult.
I don't know quite what the answer is, but it probably involves more central co-ordination of how infrastructure is provided, and a mechanism for capturing the uplift in land value when sites come forward for development. But none of this is going to be easy, for any political party.
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
I think that would be a mistake. It depends on the QS of course but LDs can also argue that the Tories clearly "won" and to force an immediate election or risk the undoubted dangers of Corbynism would be irresponsible. I'd be suprised if an immediate election would be popular with the majority of the population. It would be popular with the commited Labour voters but the LDs aren't going to win those votes anway. A grudging abstention position can be made to look like responsible statesmanship in the short term at least.
The LibDems would benefit from an early election winning perhaps another 4 or 5 seats. If it results in another minority government, which it probably would, the LibDems could position themselves as holding the minority government "on a leash" and only agreeing to legislation that was in line with LibDem principles.
I am not convinced unless you are referring to Scottish seats which I don't know enough about to comment. An election held soon would be the most divisive in modern times, some waverers from the Labour Party might vote LD but for many it would be for or against Corbyn and that would be different form the one we have just had. I don't mean that the Tories wouldn't have to create some kind of positive narrative to win but the basic psychology would be flat out tactical voting by anti-Corbyn voters and there are few seats where the LibDems are best placed to stop Labour.
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.
FWIW we just bought 9 units at 1.287
Cable is currently trading at 1.36.
It was before the election to pre fund a potential investment
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.
FWIW we just bought 9 units at 1.287
Cable is currently trading at 1.36.
It was before the election to pre fund a potential investment
I should have specified that I was talking about Uncle Vince.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
whereabouts in London is it almost unlivable or is this a meaningless generalisation that is unsupported by the evidence of population movement?
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
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.
FWIW we just bought 9 units at 1.287
Cable is currently trading at 1.36.
It was before the election to pre fund a potential investment
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'.
.
I think that would be a mistake. It depends on the QS of course but LDs can also argue that the Tories clearly "won" and to force an immediate election or risk the undoubted dangers of Corbynism would be irresponsible. I'd be suprised if an immediate election would be popular with the majority of the population. It would be popular with the commited Labour voters but the LDs aren't going to win those votes anway. A grudging abstention position can be made to look like responsible statesmanship in the short term at least.
The LibDems would benefit from an early election winning perhaps another 4 or 5 seats. If it results in another minority government, which it probably would, the LibDems could position themselves as holding the minority government "on a leash" and only agreeing to legislation that was in line with LibDem principles.
I am not convinced unless you are referring to Scottish seats which I don't know enough about to comment. An election held soon would be the most divisive in modern times, some waverers from the Labour Party might vote LD but for many it would be for or against Corbyn and that would be different form the one we have just had. I don't mean that the Tories wouldn't have to create some kind of positive narrative to win but the basic psychology would be flat out tactical voting by anti-Corbyn voters and there are few seats where the LibDems are best placed to stop Labour.
There would also be flat out tactical voting by anti-Tory Labour voters which would give the LibDems Richmond Park, St Ives, and Cheltenham. They also have a chance with Ceredigion and Fife NE (2 vote SNP majority).
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
Indeed, it's hilarious seeing all these Tories so nostalgic for the Golden Age of Coalition...
... But you can understand why when you consider the relative stability of the coalition compared with the absolute shambles of the past two years of unfettered toryism!
Lol and the Tories shafted the LibDems confident they wouldn't need their help again for another generation...
Something I have been thinking about. If they were operating in a PR system where coalitions are the norm,would the Conservatives have been quite as ready to trash their coalition partners?
They are the necessary conditions to be able to pay migrants terrible wages for previously better paid jobs. Sweatshops that we sneer at abroad in our capital that the luvvies luv
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'.
But the Lib Dems also need to come out guns blazing against Corbyn to establish themselves as the reasonable centre or centre left option. A position that was highly critical of both Tories and Labour is pretty easy to justify. They can abstain on key votes for the time being and hold fire until they can strike for a second referendum.
No - they would lose any tactical votes they might have regained this month. It would simply confirm the suspicions that centre-left voters have formed of them as a result of the Coalition. I suspect that the LibDems will wish to take every opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of such voters by opposing the Tories and denying them all effective support.
Indeed, it's hilarious seeing all these Tories so nostalgic for the Golden Age of Coalition...
... But you can understand why when you consider the relative stability of the coalition compared with the absolute shambles of the past two years of unfettered toryism!
Lol and the Tories shafted the LibDems confident they wouldn't need their help again for another generation...
Something I have been thinking about. If they were operating in a PR system where coalitions are the norm,would the Conservatives have been quite as ready to trash their coalition partners?
The German CDU suffered from this in 2013. They gained an extra 72 seats, but the FDP lost all 93, so they ended up in coalition with SPD, despite greatly increasing their vote!
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
Couldn't agree more. The secret behind all great fortune is a crime forgotten, as Balzac probably didn't say
*ahem*
South Sea Bubble
Well yes... I think Mike Atherton devotes a chapter in his book 'Gambling' to that
If you were to google it together with my surname there some very interesting academic research on our investment strategy
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.
FWIW we just bought 9 units at 1.287
Cable is currently trading at 1.36.
It was before the election to pre fund a potential investment
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
Yesterday. Davies caves over Brexit. Today the DUP demolish May over the "done deal" with the DUP.
Strong and stable with Theresa May. Oh yes.
Davis caved over Brexit?
Presumably he's referring to the EU27 accepting that the trade deal will form part of the Brexit talks, in stark contradiction to their starting position.
You mean the EU timetable set out in April that Davis said there'd be a war about in May and agreed to yesterday?
Yes. It's simply a lie to say that the EU's position was that the trade deal wouldn't form part of the Brexit talks. The issue was the sequencing of those talks, and yesterday the UK accepted the EU's position.
We should know not to expect the truth from Leavers, particularly when the lies are written on public service vehicles.
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.
FWIW we just bought 9 units at 1.287
Cable is currently trading at 1.36.
It was before the election to pre fund a potential investment
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.
No we don't.
We need nurses homes on NHS land, police and firemens homes like we used to have, and "convents" for single mothers - not necessarily religious but the same type of regime.
For any proposal that's supposed to reduce shortages you have to ask, "does this use land (or sky) that would already have had residential planning permission, or is it newly-granted planning permission".
If it's already got planning permission then it won't help: Capitalism currently has no problem building houses if the government will allow them to do it. The government is building where the private sector would have built anyway.
If it hasn't, and the arm of the government that wants the house built is over-riding the various other branches of the government that want to stop houses being built, it can just do that part, which will solve the entire problem.
Edmund, with all due respect, the housing/land market is broken and the system entirely in the hands of the house builders. The shortage is not due to a lack of government will.
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
That's very well put. Personally I like renting, but I'm on a good income and it's a different experience entirely from what you describe.
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.
No we don't.
We need nurses homes on NHS land, police and firemens homes like we used to have, and "convents" for single mothers - not necessarily religious but the same type of regime.
For any proposal that's supposed to reduce shortages you have to ask, "does this use land (or sky) that would already have had residential planning permission, or is it newly-granted planning permission".
If it's already got planning permission then it won't help: Capitalism currently has no problem building houses if the government will allow them to do it. The government is building where the private sector would have built anyway.
If it hasn't, and the arm of the government that wants the house built is over-riding the various other branches of the government that want to stop houses being built, it can just do that part, which will solve the entire problem.
Edmund, with all due respect, the housing/land market is broken and the system entirely in the hands of the house builders. The shortage is not due to a lack of government will.
Additionally, crashing the market with over capacity is probably not a great idea. Plus it will lead to an inefficient allocation of resources away from commercial investment.
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.
The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
Couldn't agree more. The secret behind all great fortune is a crime forgotten, as Balzac probably didn't say
*ahem*
South Sea Bubble
Well yes... I think Mike Atherton devotes a chapter in his book 'Gambling' to that
If you were to google it together with my surname there some very interesting academic research on our investment strategy
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
Yup. People have a go at Corbyn, but he talked about this early and genuinely seems to want to try and sort it out.
Tories talk a good game but do fuck all because all their voters (And some of their MPs) are landlords
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
Yes, I think the party is finally waking up to it. As someone said on here recently, BTL is an existential threat to the our party. The idea that people will adjust to renting privately is absurd.even the more sceptical voices on here are beginning to change their tune on the housing market, there was a time when I was very much alone on BTL (2013 I think), but now the clouds are gathering for dickbag landlords and hopefully the end of this parasitical practice is at hand.
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
Yup. People have a go at Corbyn, but he talked about this early and genuinely seems to want to try and sort it out.
Tories talk a good game but do fuck all because all their voters (And some of their MPs) are landlords
Rubbish, there are about 1m private landlords in the UK, the Tories just got 13m votes. The danger (for Labour) is that if we manage to fix the market we stand to gain millions of votes from the new home owners and lose a few hundred thousand landlords who don't have anywhere else to go. Labour will be the biggest loser from increasing home ownership, which is why their policy is about increasing social rent and trapping people in poor quality housing and public sector dependency.
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
The way out is to leave.
Your answer to everything. Leave EU, and turn London into Mansfield.
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
The way out is to leave.
Your answer to everything. Leave EU, and turn London into Mansfield.
The Paleo Tory Vision for Britain.
I think he meant for people unable to buy, they would end up leaving the country. Which has been happening in my experience. Quite a few of my friends are scattered across the world.
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.
I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
Yup. People have a go at Corbyn, but he talked about this early and genuinely seems to want to try and sort it out.
Tories talk a good game but do fuck all because all their voters (And some of their MPs) are landlords
Rubbish, there are about 1m private landlords in the UK, the Tories just got 13m votes. The danger (for Labour) is that if we manage to fix the market we stand to gain millions of votes from the new home owners and lose a few hundred thousand landlords who don't have anywhere else to go. Labour will be the biggest loser from increasing home ownership, which is why their policy is about increasing social rent and trapping people in poor quality housing and public sector dependency.
Comments
But, perhaps that undermines the case for mass migration.
I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.
Which is a contrast now with unlimited immigration being deemed necessary to keep Pret-A-Manger's wage bill lower and with no provision for affordable housing or expanded public services.
I suggest a levy on businesses which have a certain level of migrant workers as employees in order to fund new housing. I suspect certain companies would discover that the locals are willing to do the work if that applied.
Manor Park http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3522580/Missing-ceilings-exposed-wires-no-hot-water-kitchen-Slum-landlord-rented-dangerous-dive-young-family-700-month-faces-prosecution.html
Southwark, Newham https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/25/london-property-squeeze-affordable-housing
Barking https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/rogue-landlord-fined-thousands-for-renting-flats-compared-to-rio-de-janeiro-slums-a3518576.html?amp
Kensington https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/london/landlord-fined-150000-after-18-people-found-crammed-into-gradeii-listed-kensington-slum-a3374126.html?am
Hounslow https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/huge-fine-slum-landlord-who-7409328.amp
Lovely
We all need a Nick to agree with when it suits.
Hounslow Council has issued 144 enforcement notices ordering the destruction of unlawful building work including so-called 'beds in sheds' during the last 12 months, according to the latest government statistics.
That is more than any local authority in England except Newham (451), Westminster (212) and Brent (193). '
http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/beds-sheds-crackdown-leads-action-7827856
' High street estate agents are renting out so-called "beds in sheds" without residential planning permission, a BBC investigation has found.
Inside Out caught two companies - Hunters and Milestone - offering sub-standard housing on behalf of landlords.
Receipts show Milestone, in Willesden Green, had let a garage without windows to a young family.
When London councils began investigating this issue, it was common to see squalid shacks in back gardens, typically inhabited by numerous illegal immigrants.
A survey carried out by Brent Council turned up hundreds of outhouses built in this way.
Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, admitted: "There are probably hundreds more properties we are missing." '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21574772
I grew up in a South London semi-detached that was built in the 1880s and structurally it was in good condition. I'd be surprised if that was not still the case. Provided the housing is still in the right location surely you'd expect the structure to last a couple of hundred years?
If it's already got planning permission then it won't help: Capitalism currently has no problem building houses if the government will allow them to do it. The government is building where the private sector would have built anyway.
If it hasn't, and the arm of the government that wants the house built is over-riding the various other branches of the government that want to stop houses being built, it can just do that part, which will solve the entire problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/eu-citizens-in-britain-to-be-asked-to-register-for-post-brexit-status
Ministers planning stocktake of Europeans living in the UK to gauge demand for residency applications
It is understood ministers will unveil plans inviting all EU citizens to officially “register their interest” in acquiring documentation allowing them to live and work in the country after 2019 when Britain is scheduled to leave the European bloc.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/topic/london-rental-opportunity-of-the-week
It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.
It probably explains why I am still a working class Corbynista at heart!
Some 20th century housing can be doing well to hit 50 or 60 years.
I think the standard required a minimum of just 20 years.
South Sea Bubble
The trouble is that people make the error of seperating out the idea of building housing, with all the supporting infrastructure that goes with it.
Supporting infrastructure = electricity, roads, gas, drains, sewers, schools, trains, busses, parks. and lots of other stuff as well.
It is very easy to build housing cheaply and profitably if you are housebuilder, as long as you don't have to pay very much for the infrastructure. In most cases, the true cost of the impact of development on infrastructure far exceeds the actual value of the homes being built.
So even if you can find a way of building say a million homes somewhere in the south east in a mythical place inside or outside the greenbelt, you would still have to find a way of funding the infrastructure to support it necessary, and over the lifetime of the development. At some point you also need to think about what kind of places you are making, are they places people want to live etc.
The fact is that there is scant government money and resource available for infrastructure. Furthermore the organisations that build the infrastructure are privatised companies with a profit motive, which makes the cost high and co-ordination difficult.
I don't know quite what the answer is, but it probably involves more central co-ordination of how infrastructure is provided, and a mechanism for capturing the uplift in land value when sites come forward for development. But none of this is going to be easy, for any political party.
10:10PM
Charles said:
» show previous quotes
FWIW we just bought 9 units at 1.287
Cable is currently trading at 1.36.
He's currently at 1.5 on Betfair.
Not quite what Tomorrows World predicted.
But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.
Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.
Tories talk a good game but do fuck all because all their voters (And some of their MPs) are landlords
Brexit now not certain
General election within 18 months
Leadership jockeying has already begun
Liz is lovely.
Looks like Arlene Foster has pretty cosy ties to the UDA.
No surrender!
The Paleo Tory Vision for Britain.
Bitter old man who has never got anything right on the EU
Next thing you will be telling us is that Gerry Adams has close ties to the IRA