I was reading those Vice rental stories and they don't put the issue nearly as well as kyf. Despite what I said earlier, I've lived in places not very different to some of those, and frankly one gets used to it. But the combination with the places being really expensive is the killer, not that they're a bit short of privacy or cupboard space or the shower doesn't have a wall attachment.
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.
Yup. Dubai, Doha, Amsterdam, Berlin, even Shanghai are a few places I've lost friends to in recent years.
The thing is, people keep on coming back from those places, still broke, sort-of-culture-shocked, and still not able to buy a place of their own or feel secure enough to start a family.
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.
Been saying for ages - how did the party of buy your own house become the party of buy to let....
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?
Shuffling deckchairs.
Eh?
Do you want landlords to sell up to FTBs or don't you?
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.
The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
Not at all. He [Hesletine] 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.
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?
Shuffling deckchairs.
Eh?
Do you want landlords to sell up to FTBs or don't you?
Or do you just envy and hate landlords?
Indeed I would have thought that former tenants who now own their own home would be quite pleased with the "shuffled deckchair" no matter how condescending some may want to be. They may view owning their own home as quite an important deckchair to them.
Interesting approach by The Mail. The Right's take on the Grenfell disaster hasn't been difficult to discern so far: it's all immigration's fault for putting third-world shanty towns in our midst. So it's surprising that The Mail has gone off script and given a voice to the victims (albeit through an indirect pop at Corbyn). What's Dacre playing at?
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.
Been saying for ages - how did the party of buy your own house become the party of buy to let....
Probably started when Gordon Brown wrecked the pension system that was once the envy of the world, people looked for alternative investments so BTL became the rage.
I think they are in for a shock, property prices do not just go one way, I think there is a huge property crash on the horizon
Is there any chance that the delay in the MayDUP deal is to increase the drama, and so make May look like someone who can pull a deal out of a near crisis?
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.
This is the thing about failed command economies, there are always scapegoats: X is hoarding, y is profiteering. Housebuilders, private landlords, evil foreign tax-evaders, there's always someone to blame when a central-planning system predictably fails.
There are of course parts of the government who know how much damage the policy is causing and want to stop banning people from building on basically all the land and sky in the country, but they've never had the clout to change it.
Is there any chance that the delay in the MayDUP deal is to increase the drama, and so make May look like someone who can pull a deal out of a near crisis?
Hahaha... and maybe she deliberately lost her majority to give her the opportunitiy to show what a great political wheeler-dealer she is?
The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.
Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.
The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?
Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.
Interesting approach by The Mail. The Right's take on the Grenfell disaster hasn't been difficult to discern so far: it's all immigration's fault for putting third-world shanty towns in our midst. So it's surprising that The Mail has gone off script and given a voice to the victims (albeit through an indirect pop at Corbyn). What's Dacre playing at?
I think the 'voice of the victims' is the incedental part here and the 'pop at Corbyn' is the real message.
Is there any chance that the delay in the MayDUP deal is to increase the drama, and so make May look like someone who can pull a deal out of a near crisis?
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.
There are a lot of votes to gain and very few to lose. About four times as many private tenants as there are landlords, if memory serves. And 1m private landlords are hardly likely to suddenly enthusiastically embrace Corbynism if the Tories put the screws on them just a little bit.
Best way forward now is to increase supply, building starter homes where they're actually needed. Couple that with increasing taxes on BTL landlords slowly, an escalator that causes more and more of them to drop out of the market. Gradually introduce new laws severely curtailing BTL mortgages. Make 3 year secure tenancies the default. Ruthlessly prosecute any landlord putting sub-standard housing on the market. Keelhaul a few of 'em. Make a public example out of them.
I haven't put limiting immigration on the table because that creates other economic problems, particularly in the short run. But it's undeniably a contributing factor - one my Corbynista mates ignore when I mention that maybe it plays a part in why they're living 8 to a flat.
Thatcher understood that home ownership created Conservative voters. But this goes far beyond party lines, it's about creating communities with cohesion, it's about ensuring that our young are able to put down roots and start families, it's about ensuring people have a stake in society and that there is some kind of social mobility. So let's build a hell of a lot more social housing too. People are utterly rootless - moving from place to place, year to year. It's a blight on society.
The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.
Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.
The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?
Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.
Oh yes - I can see that garnering a few votes for the Tories in Nimbyshire.
This article explains that the DUP issue isn't about the Queens Speech. The DUP will never bring down the Conservative government but it can stop it functioning between confidence votes by rejecting any particular bit of legislation it doesn't like or for which it doesn't get a suitably large payoff.
This article explains that the DUP issue isn't about the Queens Speech. The DUP will never bring down the Conservative government but it can stop it functioning between confidence votes by rejecting any particular bit of legislation it doesn't like or for which it doesn't get a suitably large payoff.
We are headed for a Schrodingers Government. Simultaneously alive and dead.
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
Artificially lifting the market?
No - just very disciplined trading (both on the way up and down) with good insight into trading flows
This article explains that the DUP issue isn't about the Queens Speech. The DUP will never bring down the Conservative government but it can stop it functioning between confidence votes by rejecting any particular bit of legislation it doesn't like or for which it doesn't get a suitably large payoff.
We are headed for a Schrodingers Government. Simultaneously alive and dead.
Is there any chance that the delay in the MayDUP deal is to increase the drama, and so make May look like someone who can pull a deal out of a near crisis?
Good point. If a deal with the DUP is done, how long before we hear about anonymous briefings from 'hitherto critical Tory MPs' to the effect of 'My, my, I never thought Theresa had it in her. If she can forge this deal with the DUP then that's bodes extremely well for what she can do with the EU. "Strong and Stable" indeed!'
The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.
Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.
The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?
Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.
Two good points here: landlords are not the enemy. (Correct, and rebalancing towards owner-occupation shouldn't punish them.) And, that we need to free up the house-building industry. It is about time to move the green belt out a bit. It's served its purpose well but it needs tweaking. By me here in north Birmingham the green belt is often grotty fields that would frankly look better if they were built on. And central government should be pushing and helping local government to build new council houses. To give another Birmingham example, Ladywood Secondary School, which was closed in 1990, was only demolished in 2013 and the site is still empty now, four years later.
The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.
Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.
The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?
Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.
The biggest problem is not planning permissions or the lack of land. It is land banking by the developers.
600,000 plots of land with planning permission that they won't build on.
To quote:
"Getting planning permission isn’t the issue: England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes that are started."
Maybe this is a use for that LVT everyone keeps talking about. If the developers were forced to pay tax on the value of the and they are sitting on they would start thinking about building on it soon enough.
Interesting approach by The Mail. The Right's take on the Grenfell disaster hasn't been difficult to discern so far: it's all immigration's fault for putting third-world shanty towns in our midst. So it's surprising that The Mail has gone off script and given a voice to the victims (albeit through an indirect pop at Corbyn). What's Dacre playing at?
Assuming that rentamob will cause trouble at the demo
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.
The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
Says the middle class landlord. You are the enemy and I can't wait until the country realises what a parasite you and your lot are.
Interesting approach by The Mail. The Right's take on the Grenfell disaster hasn't been difficult to discern so far: it's all immigration's fault for putting third-world shanty towns in our midst. So it's surprising that The Mail has gone off script and given a voice to the victims (albeit through an indirect pop at Corbyn). What's Dacre playing at?
Assuming that rentamob will cause trouble at the demo
Yep, if there's trouble at the "day of rage" The Mail will be putting Corbyn and McDonnell well and truly in the frame...
The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.
Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.
The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?
Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.
The biggest problem is not planning permissions or the lack of land. It is land banking by the developers.
600,000 plots of land with planning permission that they won't build on.
To quote:
"Getting planning permission isn’t the issue: England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes that are started."
Maybe this is a use for that LVT everyone keeps talking about. If the developers were forced to pay tax on the value of the and they are sitting on they would start thinking about building on it soon enough.
The point is that it is not in the housebuilders interests to build houses any faster than they can sell them. They of all people do not want to oversupply the market.
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.
You seem very insecure Bob - are you a renter yourself or were you fortunate to buy in London before it became too expensive for you. Whatever, your London lifestyle is dependent upon the exploitation of inequality. I'd feel ashamed if it was me. Perhaps you do too and that's why you're so touchy on this issue.
I prefer a country where the person on average wages can afford to buy the average house.
That seems to be a vision you don't share.
Though your hostility towards places where there isn't such inequality and exploitation and where a nurse can own a house instead of being dependent upon food-banks is amusing.
The London Labour vision for Britain - shanty towns in suburbia and nurses dependent upon food-banks.
Not at all. He [Hesletine] 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.
Docklands springs to mind.
Wasn't the Dome his idea, until Mandelson came along and wrecked the implementation?
The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.
Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.
The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?
Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.
The biggest problem is not planning permissions or the lack of land. It is land banking by the developers.
600,000 plots of land with planning permission that they won't build on.
To quote:
"Getting planning permission isn’t the issue: England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes that are started."
Maybe this is a use for that LVT everyone keeps talking about. If the developers were forced to pay tax on the value of the and they are sitting on they would start thinking about building on it soon enough.
The point is that it is not in the housebuilders interests to build houses any faster than they can sell them. They of all people do not want to oversupply the market.
Which is why new supply of housing to buy must come from private landlords leaving the property market. The government must look at ways to make renting out existing property unprofitable. We need to encourage develop/build to let, and gut buy to let.
Interesting approach by The Mail. The Right's take on the Grenfell disaster hasn't been difficult to discern so far: it's all immigration's fault for putting third-world shanty towns in our midst. So it's surprising that The Mail has gone off script and given a voice to the victims (albeit through an indirect pop at Corbyn). What's Dacre playing at?
I've just been to a supper party in W10, one street from Grenfell Tower.
Oh my word, I confess I had no idea. The atmos there is incredible. Subdued, angry, mutinous, achingly sad. Whole streets still closed off, ambulances and police everywhere - still. Schools closed because so many kids are dead.
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.
You seem very insecure Bob - are you a renter yourself or were you fortunate to buy in London before it became too expensive for you. Whatever, your London lifestyle is dependent upon the exploitation of inequality. I'd feel ashamed if it was me. Perhaps you do too and that's why you're so touchy on this issue.
I prefer a country where the person on average wages can afford to buy the average house.
That seems to be a vision you don't share.
Though your hostility towards places where there isn't such inequality and exploitation and where a nurse can own a house instead of being dependent upon food-banks is amusing.
The London Labour vision for Britain - shanty towns in suburbia and nurses dependent upon food-banks.
You do talk a load of shite. This sounds closer to the vision you excite over on a regular basis than anything. The one where robots do all the work while the proles press their noses against the glass from the outside.
The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.
Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.
The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?
Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.
The biggest problem is not planning permissions or the lack of land. It is land banking by the developers.
600,000 plots of land with planning permission that they won't build on.
To quote:
"Getting planning permission isn’t the issue: England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes that are started."
Maybe this is a use for that LVT everyone keeps talking about. If the developers were forced to pay tax on the value of the and they are sitting on they would start thinking about building on it soon enough.
The point is that it is not in the housebuilders interests to build houses any faster than they can sell them. They of all people do not want to oversupply the market.
Which is why new supply of housing to buy must come from private landlords leaving the property market. The government must look at ways to make renting out existing property unprofitable. We need to encourage develop/build to let, and gut buy to let.
But it is not new supply. If those houses already have people living in them then simply moving them from rented to owned status does nothing at all to increase the number of properties available for people to live in.
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.
Absolutely true. And hypocritical rentier c*nts like Tyson make money from it!
Tories need to build, build, build. Enormous towers (with safe cladding_. Build and sell. It will take 20% off London property prices, but who cares. We can cope. Get on with it. Two million homes.
Interesting approach by The Mail. The Right's take on the Grenfell disaster hasn't been difficult to discern so far: it's all immigration's fault for putting third-world shanty towns in our midst. So it's surprising that The Mail has gone off script and given a voice to the victims (albeit through an indirect pop at Corbyn). What's Dacre playing at?
I've just been to a supper party in W10, one street from Grenfell Tower.
Oh my word, I confess I had no idea. The atmos there is incredible. Subdued, angry, mutinous, achingly sad. Whole streets still closed off, ambulances and police everywhere - still. Schools closed because so many kids are dead.
Sobering. Sobering. Sobering.
Snap, sort of.
My Mum and I had a little walk around from Ladbroke Grove to Latimer Road this afternoon. Very sad to see the tower charred black from so close, and the floral and poster tributes. So touching and so morbid in a way. I actually felt a little uncomfortable to be honest, but I did listen (among others) to a few residents talking about their experiences and fears.
Amazing how many left wing cocksuckers on here turn out to be private landlords making an easy buck, despite their squeals of virtue.
Insect life.
Indeed. My dad and his two brothers just finished a 12 or 13 flat development in North London (just around the corner from where Jez lives!), one wanted to keep them and rent them for income, my dad and the other one wanted to sell to owner occupiers. Now they are having to dissolve their partnership so my dad and other uncle can sell. These were three almost derelict buildings which have been developed to a very high standard and were intended to be sold, the dick bag uncle moans about how his kids aren't on the housing ladder all the fucking time.
I'd like to see huge taxes on buy to let and CGT exemptions for build and develop to let. It should be a revenue neutral move for long enough to fix the market.
The consensus on the DUP is that they simply will not vote against the queens speech because they can't be seen to accept Corbyn. But consensus has been proved wrong so often recently, what if we ignore that bit of consensus and then look at the options?
The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?
If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?
If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?
If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?
If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.
What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?
I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.
Interesting approach by The Mail. The Right's take on the Grenfell disaster hasn't been difficult to discern so far: it's all immigration's fault for putting third-world shanty towns in our midst. So it's surprising that The Mail has gone off script and given a voice to the victims (albeit through an indirect pop at Corbyn). What's Dacre playing at?
I've just been to a supper party in W10, one street from Grenfell Tower.
Oh my word, I confess I had no idea. The atmos there is incredible. Subdued, angry, mutinous, achingly sad. Whole streets still closed off, ambulances and police everywhere - still. Schools closed because so many kids are dead.
Sobering. Sobering. Sobering.
That's hardly a surprise.
It was a surprise to me. The mood in north, east and central London is PARTY TIME, thanks to the lovely weather.
But that corner of Ladbroke Grove? - wow. It's like a little version of 9/11
I guess I should have predicted this, or expected it, but I didn't.
They have had their little version of 9/11 and many, maybe most, will know someone who has died.
But I'm not surprised that not far away things are different - it reminds me of 1984 and how quickly the effects of a rocket attack were forgotten.
The consensus on the DUP is that they simply will not vote against the queens speech because they can't be seen to accept Corbyn. But consensus has been proved wrong so often recently, what if we ignore that bit of consensus and then look at the options?
The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?
If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?
If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?
If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?
If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.
What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?
I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.
I wonder what the DUP's voters think about Corbyn's attitude on the IRA/Sinn Fein.
Is there any chance that the delay in the MayDUP deal is to increase the drama, and so make May look like someone who can pull a deal out of a near crisis?
That's clearly what you think.
Oh no, I think it's unlikely, and think it would be most unwise of them to delay this on purpose. I'm just wondering if it's a possibility. May needs some good news; maybe they're going to try and make this look like good news?
But it is not new supply. If those houses already have people living in them then simply moving them from rented to owned status does nothing at all to increase the number of properties available for people to live in.
It's new supply for (prospective) owner occupiers. Remember we're not talking about a situation where a private landlord sells to some other kind of investor, primary the buyers would be owner occupiers, either moving up the chain or getting on the ladder. The demand among 25-45 year olds is for homes to buy so they can live in them where that supply comes from is irrelevant. When they buy their own home they reduce demand in the rental sector.
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.
Absolutely true. And hypocritical rentier c*nts like Tyson make money from it!
Tories need to build, build, build. Enormous towers (with safe cladding_. Build and sell. It will take 20% off London property prices, but who cares. We can cope. Get on with it. Two million homes.
Is Tyson a rentier ?
According to Charles, yes. Quite incredible, if it is true. Mind-numbing hypocrisy.
Does Charles know Tyson then ?
I believe Tyson once had a good job with Oxfordshire council but I thought Mrs Tyson was the main worker now.
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.
You seem very insecure Bob - are you a renter yourself or were you fortunate to buy in London before it became too expensive for you. Whatever, your London lifestyle is dependent upon the exploitation of inequality. I'd feel ashamed if it was me. Perhaps you do too and that's why you're so touchy on this issue.
I prefer a country where the person on average wages can afford to buy the average house.
That seems to be a vision you don't share.
Though your hostility towards places where there isn't such inequality and exploitation and where a nurse can own a house instead of being dependent upon food-banks is amusing.
The London Labour vision for Britain - shanty towns in suburbia and nurses dependent upon food-banks.
You do talk a load of shite. This sounds closer to the vision you excite over on a regular basis than anything. The one where robots do all the work while the proles press their noses against the glass from the outside.
That's very impressive abuse though I'm not sure what it means.
I'll put you down as someone who doesn't think the average person being able to afford the average house is a good thing.
Is there any chance that the delay in the MayDUP deal is to increase the drama, and so make May look like someone who can pull a deal out of a near crisis?
That's clearly what you think.
Oh no, I think it's unlikely, and think it would be most unwise of them to delay this on purpose. I'm just wondering if it's a possibility. May needs some good news; maybe they're going to try and make this look like good news?
The consensus on the DUP is that they simply will not vote against the queens speech because they can't be seen to accept Corbyn. But consensus has been proved wrong so often recently, what if we ignore that bit of consensus and then look at the options?
The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?
If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?
If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?
If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?
If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.
What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?
I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.
Because Corbyn is the worst little weed, a pathetic little cheerleader from a distance who wouldn't fight for shit.
Those who won't get their hands dirty whilst shouting the odds from across the water are seen as being as low as they come. Thats how many people think over here.
But it is not new supply. If those houses already have people living in them then simply moving them from rented to owned status does nothing at all to increase the number of properties available for people to live in.
It's new supply for (prospective) owner occupiers. Remember we're not talking about a situation where a private landlord sells to some other kind of investor, primary the buyers would be owner occupiers, either moving up the chain or getting on the ladder. The demand among 25-45 year olds is for homes to buy so they can live in them where that supply comes from is irrelevant. When they buy their own home they reduce demand in the rental sector.
No they don't. They don't make a blind bit of difference to demand in the rental sector because although they have taken themselves out of the sector they have taken a house out as well. Whilst I am all for people buying their own houses it makes not one bit of difference to the issue of housing supply.
The consensus on the DUP is that they simply will not vote against the queens speech because they can't be seen to accept Corbyn. But consensus has been proved wrong so often recently, what if we ignore that bit of consensus and then look at the options?
The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?
If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?
If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?
If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?
If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.
What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?
I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.
I wonder what the DUP's voters think about Corbyn's attitude on the IRA/Sinn Fein.
I would have thought similar to the hatred of Sinn Fein themselves (and vice versa), but they have worked with them in the NI assembly. But just because the voters have gone for the more hardline parties doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are ever more obsessed about unionism/republicanism - those people used to vote UUP/SDLP, they haven't been radicalised, just forced to 'get off the fence'.
The consensus on the DUP is that they simply will not vote against the queens speech because they can't be seen to accept Corbyn. But consensus has been proved wrong so often recently, what if we ignore that bit of consensus and then look at the options?
The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?
If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?
If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?
If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?
If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.
What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?
I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.
I wonder what the DUP's voters think about Corbyn's attitude on the IRA/Sinn Fein.
I would have thought similar to the hatred of Sinn Fein themselves (and vice versa), but they have worked with them in the NI assembly. But just because the voters have gone for the more hardline parties doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are ever more obsessed about unionism/republicanism - those people used to vote UUP/SDLP, they haven't been radicalised, just forced to 'get off the fence'.
Isn't that because they have to work with them in the assembly, it's designed that way.
I'm just back from the pub with a friend of mine who grew up on the Lancaster West housing estate by Grenfell Tower. My mate is a real "boy done good", who I met at Cambridge and who had a glittering career at investment banks and hedge funds.
Anyway, I asked if he'd known anyone who lived in Grenfell Tower and he said that one of his friends from school had lived in there when he was younger. He then showed me the messages from his phone:
Matt (my friend): Hey I heard about the fire, are you OK? Nick: Don't worry bruv, I got an alibi
(I should add that Nick no longer lives in the tower, and is a criminal barrister. But I thought it was such a spectacular bit of gallows humour that it was worth sharing.)
Is there any chance that the delay in the MayDUP deal is to increase the drama, and so make May look like someone who can pull a deal out of a near crisis?
That's clearly what you think.
Oh no, I think it's unlikely, and think it would be most unwise of them to delay this on purpose. I'm just wondering if it's a possibility. May needs some good news; maybe they're going to try and make this look like good news?
They'd be more likely to mess things up.
I'm sure they would, but they still might just be desperate enough to try it
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.
You seem very insecure Bob - are you a renter yourself or were you fortunate to buy in London before it became too expensive for you. Whatever, your London lifestyle is dependent upon the exploitation of inequality. I'd feel ashamed if it was me. Perhaps you do too and that's why you're so touchy on this issue.
I prefer a country where the person on average wages can afford to buy the average house.
That seems to be a vision you don't share.
Though your hostility towards places where there isn't such inequality and exploitation and where a nurse can own a house instead of being dependent upon food-banks is amusing.
The London Labour vision for Britain - shanty towns in suburbia and nurses dependent upon food-banks.
I own a four bedroom house in London.
I'll ignore your daft comments and ask why we have generation paying the similar in rent as my wife & I do in mortgage fees. The changes to the borrowing rules have been a disaster as saving for a deposit is impossible for many. I started out on a 100% mortgage. My equity is now approaching 50%.
I'm sure it plays a role, but the ultimate cause is that there are now sources of oil in the world that are economic at sub $50/barrel.
Yes, principally fracking in the US I suppose. It's difficult to decide whether the drop in oil price is is good or bad thing as far as countries like Saudi Arabia are concerned.
I wonder what the DUP's voters think about Corbyn's attitude on the IRA/Sinn Fein.
I would have thought similar to the hatred of Sinn Fein themselves (and vice versa), but they have worked with them in the NI assembly. But just because the voters have gone for the more hardline parties doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are ever more obsessed about unionism/republicanism - those people used to vote UUP/SDLP, they haven't been radicalised, just forced to 'get off the fence'.
Isn't that because they have to work with them in the assembly, it's designed that way.
Sure, but formal rules or not, if you have to do a deal with Sinn Fein, you must be able to put your hatred of them to one side to be able to do it (and to be fair we have seen throughout the years that this has often proved too difficult with the shutdowns of the assembly). @Y0kel 's response to me raises the point that Corbyn being seen as a cheerleader from afar is more toxic than getting involved in the fighting itself, which I can understand.
Most likely, the DUP will vote the QS, or at least abstain. Corbyn probably is too toxic. But it just seems to me that too many non-empirical assumptions are being made to be so sure about it.
I wonder what the DUP's voters think about Corbyn's attitude on the IRA/Sinn Fein.
I would have thought similar to the hatred of Sinn Fein themselves (and vice versa), but they have worked with them in the NI assembly. But just because the voters have gone for the more hardline parties doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are ever more obsessed about unionism/republicanism - those people used to vote UUP/SDLP, they haven't been radicalised, just forced to 'get off the fence'.
Isn't that because they have to work with them in the assembly, it's designed that way.
Sure, but formal rules or not, if you have to do a deal with Sinn Fein, you must be able to put your hatred of them to one side to be able to do it (and to be fair we have seen throughout the years that this has often proved too difficult with the shutdowns of the assembly). @Y0kel 's response to me raises the point that Corbyn being seen as a cheerleader from afar is more toxic than getting involved in the fighting itself, which I can understand.
Most likely, the DUP will vote the QS, or at least abstain. Corbyn probably is too toxic. But it just seems to me that too many non-empirical assumptions are being made to be so sure about it.
Correct. On the balance of probability that is what will happen. But I now ignore PBers who speak with apparent certainty about what will happen - "May will go on until 2022" - they are usually just saying what they want to happen. There are no certainties, as the last 24 months have proved!
Your answer to everything. Leave EU, and turn London into Mansfield.
The Paleo Tory Vision for Britain.
You seem very insecure Bob - are you a renter yourself or were you fortunate to buy in London before it became too expensive for you. Whatever, your London lifestyle is dependent upon the exploitation of inequality. I'd feel ashamed if it was me. Perhaps you do too and that's why you're so touchy on this issue.
I prefer a country where the person on average wages can afford to buy the average house.
That seems to be a vision you don't share.
Though your hostility towards places where there isn't such inequality and exploitation and where a nurse can own a house instead of being dependent upon food-banks is amusing.
The London Labour vision for Britain - shanty towns in suburbia and nurses dependent upon food-banks.
I own a four bedroom house in London.
I'll ignore your daft comments and ask why we have generation paying the similar in rent as my wife & I do in mortgage fees. The changes to the borrowing rules have been a disaster as saving for a deposit is impossible for many. I started out on a 100% mortgage. My equity is now approaching 50%.
Mansfieldisation is not, however, the answer.
A genuine well done from me.
There's nothing wrong with people having to provide a deposit when buying a house and the ways they were avoided previously contributed to the dangers of negative equity, repossession and banks crashes.
The problem is that while a 5% deposit on a £100k is affordable, a 5% deposit on a £500,000 house isn't.
And the answer isn't for the government to start offering subsidies and guarantees - those only encourage even higher prices - but for the supply of housing to be increased ie increased house building.
Which is something I would have thought difficult in a constrained environment such as London, though RCS predicts imminent large scale price reductions and his views are not to be taken lightly.
For the rest of the country then Mansfieldisation is the answer - affordable housing by building enough so that the prices drop. In particular build houses in places where the communications are good and improve broadband speeds as well.
Any chance the Tories can put these DUPers on the Brexit negotiating team ?
As they favour a soft border with Ireland with all that entails in respect of freedom of movement, customs union and so on it is to be hoped they replace some of the nut jobs and fruit loons in the Conservative ranks ASAP.
Any chance the Tories can put these DUPers on the Brexit negotiating team ?
As they favour a soft border with Ireland with all that entails in respect of freedom of movement, customs union and so on it is to be hoped they replace some of the nut jobs and fruit loons in the Conservative ranks ASAP.
Haven't the DUP said they want to leave the customs union too?
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
These tweets seem to have slipped by unreported but could signal something big. Open abandonment of the "China will contain them" approach - could Trump be gearing up for some sort of intervention?
This is the economic reality which explains the Corbyn vote. The 47 year olds (+ under) is where the pinch starts to be felt, getting progressively worse for each subsequent cohort.
For 26-31 year olds it's completely f*cking hopeless.
Basically, they aren't able to generate wealth in this economy like previous generations were.
A lot of posters in Ladbroke Grove saying the death toll is actually 150 not 79 as reported by the MSM.
The authorities need to provide honest numbers soon.
Are they only honest when provided by those not in authority then?
There is a lot of distrust of the authorities right now. Nobody belives the 79 figure.
I'll just say that for now.
Lots of #fakenews doing the rounds:
Victims of the Grenfell Tower fire are not being asked to move hundreds of miles from their homes, the team organising the emergency response says.
The Grenfell Response Team also said it was not aware any victims were sleeping in parks and denied claims some could be made "intentionally homeless".
Labour MPs have raised concerns some people are sleeping rough and others being offered housing in Lancashire.
Is it true Jeremy Corbyn has stopped beating his wife? I'm not saying he is - but I think we should be told.......(PARODY - I'm sure Corbyn is a fine husband, but this is how it works....)
I don't think the Westminster Lobby could have coped with the casual confidence and supply deal the SNP formed with the Scottish Conservatives back in 2007. It was a win win for the SNP, Scottish media barely reported on it apart from the period surrounding the annual vote on the SNP budget when the other parties rattled their sabres. But what was clear during that fixed term Parliament, none of the opposition parties really wanted to force another Holyrood election. It makes you laugh when you think of Sturgeon's obsession with the Toaarries and anyone she thinks might prop them up in power at Westminster now.
Even now I doubt that some Westminster lobby journalists know that the SNP survived a full first term as a minority Government thanks to Scottish Conservative support and because the other opposition parties did not want to suffer the wrath of the electorate by forcing an unnecessary election. Not sure the electorate will thank any party who tries to force a third GE on in the UK in two and half years, and during the vital Brexit talks, thus making us look a laughing stock.
As the SKWAWKBOX covered at the weekend, in spite of promises to the contrary by Theresa May and the local council some residents of Grenfell Tower have been offered accommodation in Preston and even as far north as Northumberland – and threatened with being labelled ‘intentionally homeless’ if they refuse the offer.
Being judged ‘intentionally’ homeless would mean the withdrawal of support and the loss of a position on housing lists.
But it has emerged that it can also mean losing custody of your children.
It looks like Karen Handel has defeated Jon Ossof in GA 6th congressional district. He was portrayed as a Nancy Pelosi liberal who couldn't vote in the district as he lives in DC. For the Democrats, every $0.10 raised in the district was matched by over $10.00 from outside. For the GOP it was not quite as bad. It is the most expensive congressional race ever, by quite a margin. Handel 52.5% Ossof 47.5%
Not sure the electorate will thank any party who tries to force a third GE on in the UK in two and half years, and during the vital Brexit talks
Just look what they've done to the politician who forced the second one......
Anectdote alert. I had someone (non Conservative voter and no fan of May) angrily complaining to me that they had felt the need to defend her due to the way the media had behaved towards her last week! That was when I knew the media had overplayed their hand in their behaviour to May despite my own gut instinct telling me that was the case by around Friday last week.
Even tonight, the credibility of the media reporting on the failure of the Government, ie May to reach an agreement with the DUP before the QS is hanging by a shoogle peg. But I suppose that many political journalists and commentators are going to try to avoid having egg on their face after portraying May weak and without backbench support when in fact the DUP are tonight whinging about Conservative backbenchers treating them with a lack of respect... It really does kick the media narrative of a weak leader barely hanging on if May has refused the DUP demands and called their bluff...
With the vital Good Friday peace agreement hanging in the balance and no functioning devolved Government in place at Stormont, why the hell did anyone in Westminster Lobby think that the DUP were ever in a more powerful position than May and the Conservatives at Westminster right now?!
As the SKWAWKBOX covered at the weekend, in spite of promises to the contrary by Theresa May and the local council some residents of Grenfell Tower have been offered accommodation in Preston and even as far north as Northumberland – and threatened with being labelled ‘intentionally homeless’ if they refuse the offer.
Being judged ‘intentionally’ homeless would mean the withdrawal of support and the loss of a position on housing lists.
But it has emerged that it can also mean losing custody of your children.
It's pretty difficult separating out the fake news from the real. The fear - the could-happen, from the actual, the likely-to-happen.
In reality, everyone who matters is aware of the political sensitivity of grenfell and will be falling over themselves to ensure the sharp edges of the system get blunted and conscious that they really don't want to be portrayed as callous.
I'd hope.
There's no shortage of real journalists sniffing around every angle of the grenfell catastrophe picking out the nuggets of truth from the gossip.
As the SKWAWKBOX covered at the weekend, in spite of promises to the contrary by Theresa May and the local council some residents of Grenfell Tower have been offered accommodation in Preston and even as far north as Northumberland – and threatened with being labelled ‘intentionally homeless’ if they refuse the offer.
Being judged ‘intentionally’ homeless would mean the withdrawal of support and the loss of a position on housing lists.
But it has emerged that it can also mean losing custody of your children.
It's pretty difficult separating out the fake news from the real. The fear - the could-happen, from the actual, the likely-to-happen.
In reality, everyone who matters is aware of the political sensitivity of grenfell and will be bending over to ensure the sharp edges of the system get blunted and ensuring they can't be portrayed as callous.
I'd hope.
There's no shortage of real journalists sniffing around every angle of the grenfell catastrophe picking out the nuggets of truth from the gossip.
Tonight I watched the Skynews report about the SFO investigation into Barclays, as part of it they reported on the Conservative Government pledge to abolish the Serious Fraud Office in their recent manifesto.... And that was it! Absolutely no mention of the Conservative Governments intention to strengthen Britain’s response to white collar crime by incorporating the Serious Fraud Office into the National Crime Agency in the hope of improving intelligence sharing and bolstering the investigation of serious fraud, money laundering and financial crime as stated in the very same manifesto.....
As the SKWAWKBOX covered at the weekend, in spite of promises to the contrary by Theresa May and the local council some residents of Grenfell Tower have been offered accommodation in Preston and even as far north as Northumberland – and threatened with being labelled ‘intentionally homeless’ if they refuse the offer.
Being judged ‘intentionally’ homeless would mean the withdrawal of support and the loss of a position on housing lists.
But it has emerged that it can also mean losing custody of your children.
It's pretty difficult separating out the fake news from the real. The fear - the could-happen, from the actual, the likely-to-happen.
In reality, everyone who matters is aware of the political sensitivity of grenfell and will be falling over themselves to ensure the sharp edges of the system get blunted and conscious that they really don't want to be portrayed as callous.
I'd hope.
There's no shortage of real journalists sniffing around every angle of the grenfell catastrophe picking out the nuggets of truth from the gossip.
I thought it should be pretty easy to separate fake news from real news. One reports the truth, the other is made up nonsense. Reporting the "could happen" as news is totally irresponsible.
Comments
I was reading those Vice rental stories and they don't put the issue nearly as well as kyf. Despite what I said earlier, I've lived in places not very different to some of those, and frankly one gets used to it. But the combination with the places being really expensive is the killer, not that they're a bit short of privacy or cupboard space or the shower doesn't have a wall attachment.
The thing is, people keep on coming back from those places, still broke, sort-of-culture-shocked, and still not able to buy a place of their own or feel secure enough to start a family.
No surrender to the DUP/UDA
Do you want landlords to sell up to FTBs or don't you?
Or do you just envy and hate landlords?
The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.
Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.
I think they are in for a shock, property prices do not just go one way, I think there is a huge property crash on the horizon
A nice short "My Government will do their best to survive for a long as possible" would be funny (and accurate).
There are of course parts of the government who know how much damage the policy is causing and want to stop banning people from building on basically all the land and sky in the country, but they've never had the clout to change it.
Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.
The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?
Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.
Best way forward now is to increase supply, building starter homes where they're actually needed.
Couple that with increasing taxes on BTL landlords slowly, an escalator that causes more and more of them to drop out of the market.
Gradually introduce new laws severely curtailing BTL mortgages.
Make 3 year secure tenancies the default.
Ruthlessly prosecute any landlord putting sub-standard housing on the market. Keelhaul a few of 'em. Make a public example out of them.
I haven't put limiting immigration on the table because that creates other economic problems, particularly in the short run. But it's undeniably a contributing factor - one my Corbynista mates ignore when I mention that maybe it plays a part in why they're living 8 to a flat.
Thatcher understood that home ownership created Conservative voters. But this goes far beyond party lines, it's about creating communities with cohesion, it's about ensuring that our young are able to put down roots and start families, it's about ensuring people have a stake in society and that there is some kind of social mobility. So let's build a hell of a lot more social housing too. People are utterly rootless - moving from place to place, year to year. It's a blight on society.
I'll give it about six seconds.
The Guardian gets it.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/31/britain-land-housing-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking
600,000 plots of land with planning permission that they won't build on.
To quote:
"Getting planning permission isn’t the issue: England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes that are started."
Maybe this is a use for that LVT everyone keeps talking about. If the developers were forced to pay tax on the value of the and they are sitting on they would start thinking about building on it soon enough.
I prefer a country where the person on average wages can afford to buy the average house.
That seems to be a vision you don't share.
Though your hostility towards places where there isn't such inequality and exploitation and where a nurse can own a house instead of being dependent upon food-banks is amusing.
The London Labour vision for Britain - shanty towns in suburbia and nurses dependent upon food-banks.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/opinion/david-brooks-the-child-in-the-basement.html
My Mum and I had a little walk around from Ladbroke Grove to Latimer Road this afternoon. Very sad to see the tower charred black from so close, and the floral and poster tributes. So touching and so morbid in a way. I actually felt a little uncomfortable to be honest, but I did listen (among others) to a few residents talking about their experiences and fears.
I'd like to see huge taxes on buy to let and CGT exemptions for build and develop to let. It should be a revenue neutral move for long enough to fix the market.
The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?
If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?
If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?
If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?
If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.
What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?
I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.
But I'm not surprised that not far away things are different - it reminds me of 1984 and how quickly the effects of a rocket attack were forgotten.
I believe Tyson once had a good job with Oxfordshire council but I thought Mrs Tyson was the main worker now.
I'll put you down as someone who doesn't think the average person being able to afford the average house is a good thing.
Those who won't get their hands dirty whilst shouting the odds from across the water are seen as being as low as they come. Thats how many people think over here.
Anyway, I asked if he'd known anyone who lived in Grenfell Tower and he said that one of his friends from school had lived in there when he was younger. He then showed me the messages from his phone:
Matt (my friend): Hey I heard about the fire, are you OK?
Nick: Don't worry bruv, I got an alibi
(I should add that Nick no longer lives in the tower, and is a criminal barrister. But I thought it was such a spectacular bit of gallows humour that it was worth sharing.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
I'll ignore your daft comments and ask why we have generation paying the similar in rent as my wife & I do in mortgage fees. The changes to the borrowing rules have been a disaster as saving for a deposit is impossible for many. I started out on a 100% mortgage. My equity is now approaching 50%.
Mansfieldisation is not, however, the answer.
Most likely, the DUP will vote the QS, or at least abstain. Corbyn probably is too toxic. But it just seems to me that too many non-empirical assumptions are being made to be so sure about it.
http://secretldn.com/2017/06/take-ride-abandoned-underground-train-track/
There's nothing wrong with people having to provide a deposit when buying a house and the ways they were avoided previously contributed to the dangers of negative equity, repossession and banks crashes.
The problem is that while a 5% deposit on a £100k is affordable, a 5% deposit on a £500,000 house isn't.
And the answer isn't for the government to start offering subsidies and guarantees - those only encourage even higher prices - but for the supply of housing to be increased ie increased house building.
Which is something I would have thought difficult in a constrained environment such as London, though RCS predicts imminent large scale price reductions and his views are not to be taken lightly.
For the rest of the country then Mansfieldisation is the answer - affordable housing by building enough so that the prices drop. In particular build houses in places where the communications are good and improve broadband speeds as well.
And with that good night.
Just about sums it up.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/877234140483121152
These tweets seem to have slipped by unreported but could signal something big. Open abandonment of the "China will contain them" approach - could Trump be gearing up for some sort of intervention?
https://www.ft.com/content/be550b40-54e5-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f
Based on (non-paywall);
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-generation-of-wealth-asset-accumulation-across-and-within-cohorts/
"Generational wealth progress has gone into reverse, with all cohorts born since 1955 falling behind predecessors at the same age"
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/06/Wealth.pdf
Figure 18 on page 38 is bonkers.
This is the economic reality which explains the Corbyn vote. The 47 year olds (+ under) is where the pinch starts to be felt, getting progressively worse for each subsequent cohort.
For 26-31 year olds it's completely f*cking hopeless.
Basically, they aren't able to generate wealth in this economy like previous generations were.
They have pretty much no stake in the status quo.
That's social (and economic) dynamite.
The authorities need to provide honest numbers soon.
I'll just say that for now.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/20/is-dishonest-accounting-why-grenfell-official-death-toll-so-low/
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/21/video-42-dead-in-a-single-grenfell-room-still-think-theres-no-cover-up/
Still smarting over their 'D-notice' #fakenews......
Victims of the Grenfell Tower fire are not being asked to move hundreds of miles from their homes, the team organising the emergency response says.
The Grenfell Response Team also said it was not aware any victims were sleeping in parks and denied claims some could be made "intentionally homeless".
Labour MPs have raised concerns some people are sleeping rough and others being offered housing in Lancashire.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40343897
Is it true Jeremy Corbyn has stopped beating his wife? I'm not saying he is - but I think we should be told.......(PARODY - I'm sure Corbyn is a fine husband, but this is how it works....)
Even now I doubt that some Westminster lobby journalists know that the SNP survived a full first term as a minority Government thanks to Scottish Conservative support and because the other opposition parties did not want to suffer the wrath of the electorate by forcing an unnecessary election. Not sure the electorate will thank any party who tries to force a third GE on in the UK in two and half years, and during the vital Brexit talks, thus making us look a laughing stock.
Being judged ‘intentionally’ homeless would mean the withdrawal of support and the loss of a position on housing lists.
But it has emerged that it can also mean losing custody of your children.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/20/grenfell-residents-may-lose-custody-of-children-if-reject-distant-accommodation/
For the Democrats, every $0.10 raised in the district was matched by over $10.00 from outside. For the GOP it was not quite as bad. It is the most expensive congressional race ever, by quite a margin. Handel 52.5% Ossof 47.5%
Even tonight, the credibility of the media reporting on the failure of the Government, ie May to reach an agreement with the DUP before the QS is hanging by a shoogle peg. But I suppose that many political journalists and commentators are going to try to avoid having egg on their face after portraying May weak and without backbench support when in fact the DUP are tonight whinging about Conservative backbenchers treating them with a lack of respect... It really does kick the media narrative of a weak leader barely hanging on if May has refused the DUP demands and called their bluff...
With the vital Good Friday peace agreement hanging in the balance and no functioning devolved Government in place at Stormont, why the hell did anyone in Westminster Lobby think that the DUP were ever in a more powerful position than May and the Conservatives at Westminster right now?!
Full disclosure - I live in the adjacent district.
In reality, everyone who matters is aware of the political sensitivity of grenfell and will be falling over themselves to ensure the sharp edges of the system get blunted and conscious that they really don't want to be portrayed as callous.
I'd hope.
There's no shortage of real journalists sniffing around every angle of the grenfell catastrophe picking out the nuggets of truth from the gossip.