politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Porn in the U.S.A.

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Porn in the U.S.A.

I’ve always felt the topics of the betting markets are an indicator of how parties, governments, and leaders are doing. This market by the famously publicity shy bookmaker Paddy Power sums up the Trump Presidency, this is the sort of market I’d expect to see about Silvio Berlusconi, if a Trump Presidency was going well, we wouldn’t get a market like this.

Read the full story here

JosiasJessop

Can't believe I'm first?

Edit: an adventurous person might make more money by registering a domain such as "donaldtrumpsextape.com" and parking a little text and a few adverts on it.

edit2: it's already been done!

Recidivist

Second, as in second rate- the status Britain has chosen by pursuing Brexit.

Recidivist

And on topic, does Donald Trump himself have to be in the sex tape for it to count? There are Smith sex tapes out there but nobody thinks real smurfs are involved.

Toms

The USA doesn't do things by halves.
But we all could do without a jackass for Pres.

ydoethur

Berlusconi is the second longest serving Italian Prime Minister.

Admittedly the most Trump can aspire to is joint second, alongside say, Bill Clinton, I'm not sure that the parallel is a happy one. We could all do with someone vaguely sane and competent in the Oval Office.

And of course if such a tape did emerge his supporters would simply dismiss it as fake, irrelevant or both. Remember how many Democrats said Lewinsky's dress must be a put-up job (sorry) because she would have taken it to the cleaners if it had been stained?

Recidivist

Recidivist said:

And on topic, does Donald Trump himself have to be in the sex tape for it to count? There are Smith sex tapes out there but nobody thinks real smurfs are involved.

Autocorrect fail. This should have read -

"And on topic, does Donald Trump himself have to be in the sex tape for it to count? There are smurf sex tapes out there but nobody thinks real smurfs are involved."

OldKingCole

ydoethur said:

Berlusconi is the second longest serving Italian Prime Minister.

Admittedly the most Trump can aspire to is joint second, alongside say, Bill Clinton, I'm not sure that the parallel is a happy one. We could all do with someone vaguely sane and competent in the Oval Office.

And of course if such a tape did emerge his supporters would simply dismiss it as fake, irrelevant or both. Remember how many Democrats said Lewinsky's dress must be a put-up job (sorry) because she would have taken it to the cleaners if it had been stained?

I assume if Trump falls then the VP..... Mike Pence..... takes over. Be careful what you wish for.

DavidL

I still can't get over the fact that TSE is such an expert on the quality of sex tapes. Who'd have thought?

DavidL

Sky seem at a loss as to why Mrs May has gone to Florence to make a speech. It's not one of the easy ones is it?

Edit. Maybe its just the logical conclusion of her aversion to speaking to UK voters.

Charles

Recidivist said:

Recidivist said:

And on topic, does Donald Trump himself have to be in the sex tape for it to count? There are Smith sex tapes out there but nobody thinks real smurfs are involved.

Autocorrect fail. This should have read -

"And on topic, does Donald Trump himself have to be in the sex tape for it to count? There are smurf sex tapes out there but nobody thinks real smurfs are involved."

And I thought you were talking about the high quality Home Secretary that the last Labour government gave us...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8339577/Jacqui-Smith-I-knew-my-husband-liked-porn-even-two-films-a-week.html

(but that would be a really weird fetish)

Charles

DavidL said:

Sky seem at a loss as to why Mrs May has gone to Florence to make a speech. It's not one of the easy ones is it?

Edit. Maybe its just the logical conclusion of her aversion to speaking to UK voters.

It's one of the hubs of the Diocese of Fulham and Gibraltar* with a lovely church up a back alley?

http://stmarksitaly.com/

* And yes, pedants, I know it's now the Diocese of Europe. But the old name is better.

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Berlusconi is the second longest serving Italian Prime Minister.

Admittedly the most Trump can aspire to is joint second, alongside say, Bill Clinton, I'm not sure that the parallel is a happy one. We could all do with someone vaguely sane and competent in the Oval Office.

And of course if such a tape did emerge his supporters would simply dismiss it as fake, irrelevant or both. Remember how many Democrats said Lewinsky's dress must be a put-up job (sorry) because she would have taken it to the cleaners if it had been stained?

I assume if Trump falls then the VP..... Mike Pence..... takes over. Be careful what you wish for.

Which is why I very much doubt if he will be impeached.

But I would rather he were there for four years than eight.

DavidL

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Sky seem at a loss as to why Mrs May has gone to Florence to make a speech. It's not one of the easy ones is it?

Edit. Maybe its just the logical conclusion of her aversion to speaking to UK voters.

It's one of the hubs of the Diocese of Fulham and Gibraltar* with a lovely church up a back alley?

http://stmarksitaly.com/

* And yes, pedants, I know it's now the Diocese of Europe. But the old name is better.

Florence is one of the most beautiful cities in the world even if their David would not be much use in one of TSE's tapes.

But what on earth is the point of the UK PM going there to make a speech? If she wanted to make such a speech and move the negotiations along perhaps she should have accepted the invitation from the European Parliament.

OldKingCole

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Berlusconi is the second longest serving Italian Prime Minister.

Admittedly the most Trump can aspire to is joint second, alongside say, Bill Clinton, I'm not sure that the parallel is a happy one. We could all do with someone vaguely sane and competent in the Oval Office.

And of course if such a tape did emerge his supporters would simply dismiss it as fake, irrelevant or both. Remember how many Democrats said Lewinsky's dress must be a put-up job (sorry) because she would have taken it to the cleaners if it had been stained?

I assume if Trump falls then the VP..... Mike Pence..... takes over. Be careful what you wish for.

Which is why I very much doubt if he will be impeached.

But I would rather he were there for four years than eight.

Agreed. Probaby the best we can hope for, although, as far as I can see, there’s no Democrat, or Indie they would support, on the horizon.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

F1: yesterday had a trio of early tips. 7 for Verstappen to top FP1, 8 and 8.5 respectively for Ricciardo and Verstappen to win the race (all each way). Bit iffy on the practice one, feel more confident of the race bets.

On-topic: it's big. So big. The biggest you ever saw. It's true, folks. We're making porn great again.

Edited extra bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FguJqN5VQw

FF43

DavidL said:

Sky seem at a loss as to why Mrs May has gone to Florence to make a speech. It's not one of the easy ones is it?

Edit. Maybe its just the logical conclusion of her aversion to speaking to UK voters.

If it's the reaching out speech, as trailed, it's the speech Theresa May should have made a year ago when she would have had a hearing and it might have made a difference

JosiasJessop

DavidL said:

I still can't get over the fact that TSE is such an expert on the quality of sex tapes. Who'd have thought?

In doing the expert work for us, he's taking one for the team.

DavidL

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

F1: yesterday had a trio of early tips. 7 for Verstappen to top FP1, 8 and 8.5 respectively for Ricciardo and Verstappen to win the race (all each way). Bit iffy on the practice one, feel more confident of the race bets.

On-topic: it's big. So big. The biggest you ever saw. It's true, folks. We're making porn great again.

Porn is already big, turnover estimated at $15bn a year in the US alone. You can buy more than 100 MPs for a Parliament for that.

Charles

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Sky seem at a loss as to why Mrs May has gone to Florence to make a speech. It's not one of the easy ones is it?

Edit. Maybe its just the logical conclusion of her aversion to speaking to UK voters.

It's one of the hubs of the Diocese of Fulham and Gibraltar* with a lovely church up a back alley?

http://stmarksitaly.com/

* And yes, pedants, I know it's now the Diocese of Europe. But the old name is better.

Florence is one of the most beautiful cities in the world even if their David would not be much use in one of TSE's tapes.

But what on earth is the point of the UK PM going there to make a speech? If she wanted to make such a speech and move the negotiations along perhaps she should have accepted the invitation from the European Parliament.

I completely agree. I suppose unless there is some conference or other that makes it relevant.

HYUFD

Berlusconi would well return as Kingmaker in Italy next year of course

HYUFD

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Berlusconi is the second longest serving Italian Prime Minister.

Admittedly the most Trump can aspire to is joint second, alongside say, Bill Clinton, I'm not sure that the parallel is a happy one. We could all do with someone vaguely sane and competent in the Oval Office.

And of course if such a tape did emerge his supporters would simply dismiss it as fake, irrelevant or both. Remember how many Democrats said Lewinsky's dress must be a put-up job (sorry) because she would have taken it to the cleaners if it had been stained?

I assume if Trump falls then the VP..... Mike Pence..... takes over. Be careful what you wish for.

There has been at least 1 blind item about Pence too though if he ever had a porn tape I would imagine it may involve a slightly different cast than Trump's based on that

OldKingCole

On Trump, I suspect the key news today is that he’s done a deal with the Dems over DACA and security, which leaves The Wall out of it. For the moment, anyway.

And I gather from the reports that it’s not a deal the Republicans are all that happy about.

HYUFD

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Sky seem at a loss as to why Mrs May has gone to Florence to make a speech. It's not one of the easy ones is it?

Edit. Maybe its just the logical conclusion of her aversion to speaking to UK voters.

It's one of the hubs of the Diocese of Fulham and Gibraltar* with a lovely church up a back alley?

http://stmarksitaly.com/

* And yes, pedants, I know it's now the Diocese of Europe. But the old name is better.

Florence is one of the most beautiful cities in the world even if their David would not be much use in one of TSE's tapes.

But what on earth is the point of the UK PM going there to make a speech? If she wanted to make such a speech and move the negotiations along perhaps she should have accepted the invitation from the European Parliament.

I am going to Florence for a wedding next week but fly back the day before the PM gives her speech

Nigelb

But what on earth is the point of the UK PM going there to make a speech? If she wanted to make such a speech and move the negotiations along perhaps she should have accepted the invitation from the European Parliament.

May seems to be one of those people who do the right thing... only after they have pursued all the wrong options first.

this is one of those markets you’d wish the bookie would offer the other side of the bet as well.

Given that they'd probably quote odds of 100/1 or something, you can see why they don't.
(edit) Though at 100/1, I'd be tempted by the original bet. The Steele dossier doesn't look anywhere near as shaky as it did when it first appeared.

HYUFD

OldKingCole said:

On Trump, I suspect the key news today is that he’s done a deal with the Dems over DACA and security, which leaves The Wall out of it. For the moment, anyway.

And I gather from the reports that it’s not a deal the Republicans are all that happy about.

Trump is preparing himself for when the GOP lose the House next year, he will work with Democrats if he has to to get things through that will help his election, as I have long said Trump cares about the success of Trump not the GOP.

OldKingCole

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

On Trump, I suspect the key news today is that he’s done a deal with the Dems over DACA and security, which leaves The Wall out of it. For the moment, anyway.

And I gather from the reports that it’s not a deal the Republicans are all that happy about.

Trump is preparing himself for when the GOP lose the House next year, he will work with Democrats if he has to to get things through that will help his election, as I have long said Trump cares about the success of Trump not the GOP.

You and I rarely agree, but on this we do!!!

NickPalmer

TSE did enjoy writing that one. I think the difficulty in proof and definition makes it an, uh, dodgy market. Another hard-to-define market would be "Trump declares he is the first non-party President since George Washington". The deal with Schumer and Pelosi (if confirmed) is the second straw in the wind. He's clearly fed up with many Republicans and being the first anything has definite appeal for him. Tricky for the Democrats too, since they'd have to justify working with the guy they've been deriding as a sleazy monster.

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

OldKingCole

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

TOPPING

I suppose Florence = Europe = foreign = it'll do but appealing also to those elderly cultured Tories who remember fondly their time on holiday there.

Ishmael_Z

There is probably more chance with a bet like this with PP that they would settle at the first available opportunity for all that hateful publicity, rather than resist paying on a technicality.

As a lawyer I do idly wonder whether saying it is 14/1 that {defamatory statement} is true is defamatory, and whether the punter is in an even worse position because he impliedly thinks the statement is true. In the latter case the punter would have to call OGH as an expert witness to tell the court it's not about whether you think it's true, it's about where the value is.

Charles

NickPalmer said:

TSE did enjoy writing that one. I think the difficulty in proof and definition makes it an, uh, dodgy market. Another hard-to-define market would be "Trump declares he is the first non-party President since George Washington". The deal with Schumer and Pelosi (if confirmed) is the second straw in the wind. He's clearly fed up with many Republicans and being the first anything has definite appeal for him. Tricky for the Democrats too, since they'd have to justify working with the guy they've been deriding as a sleazy monster.

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

It's been going on for years - what L&G has been doing is very interesting

TOPPING

Ishmael_Z said:

There is probably more chance with a bet like this with PP that they would settle at the first available opportunity for all that hateful publicity, rather than resist paying on a technicality.

As a lawyer I do idly wonder whether saying it is 14/1 that {defamatory statement} is true is defamatory, and whether the punter is in an even worse position because he impliedly thinks the statement is true. In the latter case the punter would have to call OGH as an expert witness to tell the court it's not about whether you think it's true, it's about where the value is.

Surely then you should be given 1/14th of the sentence if found guilty.

geoffw

Anniversaries:
150 years today since publication of Das Kapital;
100 years next month since the Russian revolution;
100 years in December since Finnish independence.

All connected, but only one worth celebrating.

another_richard

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Isn't it a tragedy that we stopped building slums-in-the-sky and edge of conurbation sink estates and even more so the slums-in-the-sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

Scott_P

Ted Cruz is in trouble for "liking" a hardcore porn Tweet.

He blames the left.

The right was busy at the time...

Pro_Rata

NickPalmer said:

TSE did enjoy writing that one. I think the difficulty in proof and definition makes it an, uh, dodgy market. Another hard-to-define market would be "Trump declares he is the first non-party President since George Washington". The deal with Schumer and Pelosi (if confirmed) is the second straw in the wind. He's clearly fed up with many Republicans and being the first anything has definite appeal for him. Tricky for the Democrats too, since they'd have to justify working with the guy they've been deriding as a sleazy monster.

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Infrastructure investment is an area where I revert strongly to non ideological centrism and am willing to contemplate any approach that works:

Government taking stakes in housebuilders - fine
Government involvement in building houses to sell - fine
Traditional council house building - fine
Government companies building power generation, nuclear or tidal - fine
Government subsequently franchising out operation or privatising built assets - fine
Bringing in house a failing franchise - fine (and franchising and privatising are separate things, I do not consider that we have private railways)
Refranchising a publicly operated business unit - fine
Finance with PFI - if it's a good deal, fine, but beware the public and media conflating CapEx, OpEx, TCO, debt element, non debt element and make sure every component represents value for money
Get something built and operated privately - fine

If it truly needs doing, just get it done...

HYUFD

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

On Trump, I suspect the key news today is that he’s done a deal with the Dems over DACA and security, which leaves The Wall out of it. For the moment, anyway.

And I gather from the reports that it’s not a deal the Republicans are all that happy about.

Trump is preparing himself for when the GOP lose the House next year, he will work with Democrats if he has to to get things through that will help his election, as I have long said Trump cares about the success of Trump not the GOP.

You and I rarely agree, but on this we do!!!

Good to hear

Monksfield

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Isn't it a tragedy that we stopped building slums-in-the-sky and edge of conurbation sink estates and even more so the slums-in-the-sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

I wouldn't consider the types of high density housing the private sector is throwing up these days - with associated hidden subsidy to enable the young to purchase them- to be any great paradise. Likely many of these are the sinks of tomorrow.

another_richard

Scott_P said:

Ted Cruz is in trouble for "liking" a hardcore porn Tweet.

He blames the left.

The right was busy at the time...

I see that you declined two days running to say whether you think 5.1% HPI is a good or a bad thing.

Can we hope for a response today ?

A simple 'Rising house prices are good' or 'Rising house prices are bad' would suffice.

I suppose you could ask Osborne Central for a handy tweet to copy and paste but it would be nice to read your own thoughts.

TOPPING

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Ted Cruz is in trouble for "liking" a hardcore porn Tweet.

He blames the left.

The right was busy at the time...

I see that you declined two days running to say whether you think 5.1% HPI is a good or a bad thing.

Can we hope for a response today ?

A simple 'Rising house prices are good' or 'Rising house prices are bad' would suffice.

I suppose you could ask Osborne Central for a handy tweet to copy and paste but it would be nice to read your own thoughts.

Allow me to step in with my answer. Rising hose prices are both good and bad.

They are good because rising house prices = feelgood factor = continued or increased consumer spending = 2/3rds of our GDP = "strong" economy.

They are bad because they prevent people from buying in the first place = send them back home to live with their parents; or = push up the rental market = general malaise and frustration in the economy.

Ishmael_Z

TOPPING said:

Ishmael_Z said:

There is probably more chance with a bet like this with PP that they would settle at the first available opportunity for all that hateful publicity, rather than resist paying on a technicality.

As a lawyer I do idly wonder whether saying it is 14/1 that {defamatory statement} is true is defamatory, and whether the punter is in an even worse position because he impliedly thinks the statement is true. In the latter case the punter would have to call OGH as an expert witness to tell the court it's not about whether you think it's true, it's about where the value is.

Surely then you should be given 1/14th of the sentence if found guilty.

Good point.

PClipp

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

And even when it had the chance, Labour did nothing to halt the great sell-off of public assets at a discount - the Tories "right to buy". Labour are really an enormous waste of space.

another_richard

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Ted Cruz is in trouble for "liking" a hardcore porn Tweet.

He blames the left.

The right was busy at the time...

I see that you declined two days running to say whether you think 5.1% HPI is a good or a bad thing.

Can we hope for a response today ?

A simple 'Rising house prices are good' or 'Rising house prices are bad' would suffice.

I suppose you could ask Osborne Central for a handy tweet to copy and paste but it would be nice to read your own thoughts.

Allow me to step in with my answer. Rising hose prices are both good and bad.

They are good because rising house prices = feelgood factor = continued or increased consumer spending = 2/3rds of our GDP = "strong" economy.

They are bad because they prevent people from buying in the first place = send them back home to live with their parents; or = push up the rental market = general malaise and frustration in the economy.

Rising house prices might have good aspects when they are generally low but that doesn't apply to most of the UK at present.

When house prices are high they act as a block on socioeconomic mobility, lock too much capital into a non-productive asset and increase inequality by transferring wealth to the old and the rich.

OchEye

Interesting article on the blame placed on the US Sub-Prime market causing the collapse in 2008. Looks like it wasn't so simple as everyone was led to believe:

https://qz.com/1064061/house-flippers-triggered-the-us-housing-market-crash-not-poor-subprime-borrowers-a-new-study-shows/?utm_source=qzfb

Philip_Thompson

another_richard said:

Rising house prices might have good aspects when they are generally low but that doesn't apply to most of the UK at present.

When house prices are high they act as a block on socioeconomic mobility, lock too much capital into a non-productive asset and increase inequality by transferring wealth to the old and the rich.

Wasn't the news the other day that in most of the country earnings are growing faster than house prices? That is good news.

Charles

Pro_Rata said:

NickPalmer said:

TSE did enjoy writing that one. I think the difficulty in proof and definition makes it an, uh, dodgy market. Another hard-to-define market would be "Trump declares he is the first non-party President since George Washington". The deal with Schumer and Pelosi (if confirmed) is the second straw in the wind. He's clearly fed up with many Republicans and being the first anything has definite appeal for him. Tricky for the Democrats too, since they'd have to justify working with the guy they've been deriding as a sleazy monster.

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Infrastructure investment is an area where I revert strongly to non ideological centrism and am willing to contemplate any approach that works:

Government taking stakes in housebuilders - fine
Government involvement in building houses to sell - fine
Traditional council house building - fine
Government companies building power generation, nuclear or tidal - fine
Government subsequently franchising out operation or privatising built assets - fine
Bringing in house a failing franchise - fine (and franchising and privatising are separate things, I do not consider that we have private railways)
Refranchising a publicly operated business unit - fine
Finance with PFI - if it's a good deal, fine, but beware the public and media conflating CapEx, OpEx, TCO, debt element, non debt element and make sure every component represents value for money
Get something built and operated privately - fine

If it truly needs doing, just get it done...

Taking stakes is always difficult because that creates the temptation to interfere with management.

There can easily be synthetic mechanisms to allow government to share in the upside, but I don't think classic equity is a good idea.

The rest of list is fine.

Charles

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Ted Cruz is in trouble for "liking" a hardcore porn Tweet.

He blames the left.

The right was busy at the time...

I see that you declined two days running to say whether you think 5.1% HPI is a good or a bad thing.

Can we hope for a response today ?

A simple 'Rising house prices are good' or 'Rising house prices are bad' would suffice.

I suppose you could ask Osborne Central for a handy tweet to copy and paste but it would be nice to read your own thoughts.

Allow me to step in with my answer. Rising hose prices are both good and bad.

They are good because rising house prices = feelgood factor = continued or increased consumer spending = 2/3rds of our GDP = "strong" economy.

They are bad because they prevent people from buying in the first place = send them back home to live with their parents; or = push up the rental market = general malaise and frustration in the economy.

I'd be more precise than that.

House prices rising at more than 3x the increase in the average wage rate (as a rule of thumb) is bad.

They should increase slightly (because of the feel good factor) but at a rate which deflates the average purchase multiple gently over time

Big_G_NorthWales

TOPPING said:

I suppose Florence = Europe = foreign = it'll do but appealing also to those elderly cultured Tories who remember fondly their time on holiday there.

Beautiful City - took the family there last year. Think the choice by TM to address Europe from there is one way of getting Europe wide coverage and of course is one of the oldest trading locations with the UK

When I was last in Italy there was considerable support for the UK position and on the beaches in Genoa the EU flag had been removed and replaced with the Union Jack

calum

businesses governments
https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/908235558970970112

Philip_Thompson

NickPalmer said:

TSE did enjoy writing that one. I think the difficulty in proof and definition makes it an, uh, dodgy market. Another hard-to-define market would be "Trump declares he is the first non-party President since George Washington". The deal with Schumer and Pelosi (if confirmed) is the second straw in the wind. He's clearly fed up with many Republicans and being the first anything has definite appeal for him. Tricky for the Democrats too, since they'd have to justify working with the guy they've been deriding as a sleazy monster.

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

The second Trump abandons the Republicans, formally or informally, the odds of him getting impeached skyrocket. As long as he is nominally GOP the Senate will find it all but impossible politically to impeach him. Once he has no friends in the Senate then its one good scandal away from being game over.

Blue_rog

PClipp said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

And even when it had the chance, Labour did nothing to halt the great sell-off of public assets at a discount - the Tories "right to buy". Labour are really an enormous waste of space.

Although I'm a Tory, I feel that all governments have missed a trick here. Councils could easily push through planning on brownfield sites - not being concerned with the 'attractiveness' of the site. Building council houses will generate additional social housing, provide local employment. There;s no reason it shouldn't be self funding, with sale receipts being ploughed back into generating more housing stock.

Ishmael_Z

calum said:

https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/908235558970970112

JRM: "No one sensible thinks I am a serious candidate" (for leadership). I think he means it.

Charles

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

I suppose Florence = Europe = foreign = it'll do but appealing also to those elderly cultured Tories who remember fondly their time on holiday there.

Beautiful City - took the family there last year. Think the choice by TM to address Europe from there is one way of getting Europe wide coverage and of course is one of the oldest trading locations with the UK

When I was last in Italy there was considerable support for the UK position and on the beaches in Genoa the EU flag had been removed and replaced with the Union Jack

It is, of course, also the capital of Chiantishire and hence very very pro British

Ishmael_Z

Blue_rog said:

PClipp said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

And even when it had the chance, Labour did nothing to halt the great sell-off of public assets at a discount - the Tories "right to buy". Labour are really an enormous waste of space.

Although I'm a Tory, I feel that all governments have missed a trick here. Councils could easily push through planning on brownfield sites - not being concerned with the 'attractiveness' of the site. Building council houses will generate additional social housing, provide local employment. There;s no reason it shouldn't be self funding, with sale receipts being ploughed back into generating more housing stock.

That is right. If brownfield is so much more expensive to build on because decontamination costs so much, so what? It has to be done at some stage.

NickPalmer

A response to the "only leaders matter" theme which we discussed a few threads back (paywall):

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/a-flagging-economy-can-put-corbyn-in-no-10-klxjjt5cs

rottenborough

OchEye said:

Interesting article on the blame placed on the US Sub-Prime market causing the collapse in 2008. Looks like it wasn't so simple as everyone was led to believe:

https://qz.com/1064061/house-flippers-triggered-the-us-housing-market-crash-not-poor-subprime-borrowers-a-new-study-shows/?utm_source=qzfb

Didn't the collapse come, however, when major banks realised they couldn't quantify their own 'assets' (i.e. the parcelled up packages of mortgage debt that had all been rated A+ or whatever, when in fact they contained some dodgy loans)? Wholesale credit markets then froze as banks would not lend to other banks.

It was the parcelling up and the rating agency flaws that were the major issue.

Ishmael_Z

Like a rather less successful Edward Heath and "His firepower diminishes with every bitter outburst". Guess who JRM refers to there?

Sean_F

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

Rising house prices might have good aspects when they are generally low but that doesn't apply to most of the UK at present.

When house prices are high they act as a block on socioeconomic mobility, lock too much capital into a non-productive asset and increase inequality by transferring wealth to the old and the rich.

Wasn't the news the other day that in most of the country earnings are growing faster than house prices? That is good news.

In most places, housing has become more affordable, since 2007, but in London and the South East, far less so.

JosiasJessop

It's odd that, on the day the Grenfell Tower inquiry opens, that people are again obsessing about the number of houses being built, and ignoring quality.

There are many things wrong with the housing market in this country, and one of the biggest is not that we're building too few houses: it's that too many of the houses we're building are of poor quality.

Sean_F

another_richard said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Isn't it a tragedy that we stopped building slums-in-the-sky and edge of conurbation sink estates and even more so the slums-in-the-sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

Council housing was of variable quality. Some of it (like the Watling Estate in Burnt Oak) was excellent. Some of it (like neighbouring Graeme Park) was jerry-built rubbish.

rottenborough

Off-shore wind power could transform Britain's economy. A cheery article from AEP for once:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/13/wind-could-make-britain-energy-superpower-rival-arabia/

Pro_Rata

Charles said:

Pro_Rata said:

NickPalmer said:

TSE did enjoy writing that one. I think the difficulty in proof and definition makes it an, uh, dodgy market. Another hard-to-define market would be "Trump declares he is the first non-party President since George Washington". The deal with Schumer and Pelosi (if confirmed) is the second straw in the wind. He's clearly fed up with many Republicans and being the first anything has definite appeal for him. Tricky for the Democrats too, since they'd have to justify working with the guy they've been deriding as a sleazy monster.

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Infrastructure investment is an area where I revert strongly to non ideological centrism and am willing to contemplate any approach that works:

Government taking stakes in housebuilders - fine
Government involvement in building houses to sell - fine
Traditional council house building - fine
Government companies building power generation, nuclear or tidal - fine
Government subsequently franchising out operation or privatising built assets - fine
Bringing in house a failing franchise - fine (and franchising and privatising are separate things, I do not consider that we have private railways)
Refranchising a publicly operated business unit - fine
Finance with PFI - if it's a good deal, fine, but beware the public and media conflating CapEx, OpEx, TCO, debt element, non debt element and make sure every component represents value for money
Get something built and operated privately - fine

If it truly needs doing, just get it done...

Taking stakes is always difficult because that creates the temptation to interfere with management.

There can easily be synthetic mechanisms to allow government to share in the upside, but I don't think classic equity is a good idea.

The rest of list is fine.

The very idea would be to influence the operation of the market, even if not the day to day running. Of course it would have to be beneficial, and I'd be open to different set ups to achieve the end goal.
Once again - fine.

I like to think of myself as one of the contributers who doesn't (always) come on here to be right, but rather to explore ideas. A few took my Pro-Rata moniker to imply another legal worker, which was flattering, but it be is actually more a reminder to self (regularly ignored) to scale down my contribution according to the limits of my knowledge and reading.

another_richard

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

Rising house prices might have good aspects when they are generally low but that doesn't apply to most of the UK at present.

When house prices are high they act as a block on socioeconomic mobility, lock too much capital into a non-productive asset and increase inequality by transferring wealth to the old and the rich.

Wasn't the news the other day that in most of the country earnings are growing faster than house prices? That is good news.

It would be interesting to compare the change in housing affordability per area to the electoral swing since 2010.

I suspect swings to Labour are closely correlated to reducing affordability of homes.

Ishmael_Z

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/jacob-rees-mogg-live-on-lbc-watch-live/

A must-watch for JRMologists. I still find him impressive but I think his range is limited and he is right to aspire to Speakerdom and no higher.

Edit: and ends with a masterclass on how to bat away the "how much does a pint of milk cost" question (actually how much is a McD quarter pounder).

Charles

Pro_Rata said:

Charles said:

Pro_Rata said:

NickPalmer said:

TSE did enjoy writing that one. I think the difficulty in proof and definition makes it an, uh, dodgy market. Another hard-to-define market would be "Trump declares he is the first non-party President since George Washington". The deal with Schumer and Pelosi (if confirmed) is the second straw in the wind. He's clearly fed up with many Republicans and being the first anything has definite appeal for him. Tricky for the Democrats too, since they'd have to justify working with the guy they've been deriding as a sleazy monster.

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Infrastructure investment is an area where I revert strongly to non ideological centrism and am willing to contemplate any approach that works:

Government taking stakes in housebuilders - fine
Government involvement in building houses to sell - fine
Traditional council house building - fine
Government companies building power generation, nuclear or tidal - fine
Government subsequently franchising out operation or privatising built assets - fine
Bringing in house a failing franchise - fine (and franchising and privatising are separate things, I do not consider that we have private railways)
Refranchising a publicly operated business unit - fine
Finance with PFI - if it's a good deal, fine, but beware the public and media conflating CapEx, OpEx, TCO, debt element, non debt element and make sure every component represents value for money
Get something built and operated privately - fine

If it truly needs doing, just get it done...

Taking stakes is always difficult because that creates the temptation to interfere with management.

There can easily be synthetic mechanisms to allow government to share in the upside, but I don't think classic equity is a good idea.

The rest of list is fine.

The very idea would be to influence the operation of the market, even if not the day to day running. Of course it would have to be beneficial, and I'd be open to different set ups to achieve the end goal.
Once again - fine.

I like to think of myself as one of the contributers who doesn't (always) come on here to be right, but rather to explore ideas. A few took my Pro-Rata moniker to imply another legal worker, which was flattering, but it be is actually more a reminder to self (regularly ignored) to scale down my contribution according to the limits of my knowledge and reading.

Indeed - and politicians can and do influence the operation of the market.

I just don't trust them in the board room (which is where they would end up if they owned equity)

another_richard

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Isn't it a tragedy that we stopped building slums-in-the-sky and edge of conurbation sink estates and even more so the slums-in-the-sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

Council housing was of variable quality. Some of it (like the Watling Estate in Burnt Oak) was excellent. Some of it (like neighbouring Graeme Park) was jerry-built rubbish.

Wasn't there a tendency for the proportion of jerry-built rubbish to increase during the later stages of council house building ?

Allan

A few facts on Housing Association and Council House building.
In the full financial years (Apr98-Apr10) of the previous Labour Governments the Housing Association completed builds averaged
24,352 per year

In the full financial years 2011-2016 the Housing Association builds averaged
30,157 per year

Council housing under the Labour years = 407 per year
Council housing under Coalition/Conservative = 2,606 per year

OldKingCole

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Isn't it a tragedy that we stopped building slums-in-the-sky and edge of conurbation sink estates and even more so the slums-in-the-sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

Council housing was of variable quality. Some of it (like the Watling Estate in Burnt Oak) was excellent. Some of it (like neighbouring Graeme Park) was jerry-built rubbish.

Absolutely right. Rather like, as someone pointed out upthread, privately built estates. The finish on the pre-war council house where my in-laws lived was much better than that on the private estate to which they moved in the 70’s.

Goupillon

Next week Theresa will be sharing her latest vision on Brexit with Florence:
https://www.theguardian.com/…/theresa-may-to-deliver-brexit…
As far as I am aware the only other time Florence saw a cow flying a kite was when Ermintrude did it in The Magic Roundabout:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMpu8jH1LE8

Alistair

rottenborough said:

OchEye said:

Interesting article on the blame placed on the US Sub-Prime market causing the collapse in 2008. Looks like it wasn't so simple as everyone was led to believe:

https://qz.com/1064061/house-flippers-triggered-the-us-housing-market-crash-not-poor-subprime-borrowers-a-new-study-shows/?utm_source=qzfb

Didn't the collapse come, however, when major banks realised they couldn't quantify their own 'assets' (i.e. the parcelled up packages of mortgage debt that had all been rated A+ or whatever, when in fact they contained some dodgy loans)? Wholesale credit markets then froze as banks would not lend to other banks.

It was the parcelling up and the rating agency flaws that were the major issue.

The failing of the rating agencies is truly jaw dropping.

Scott_P

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Beautiful City - took the family there last year. Think the choice by TM to address Europe from there is one way of getting Europe wide coverage and of course is one of the oldest trading locations with the UK

When I was last in Italy there was considerable support for the UK position and on the beaches in Genoa the EU flag had been removed and replaced with the Union Jack

@xtophercook: May's speech is in Florence. Great idea - I can't think of any jokes about going to a once-major banking hub that drifted into irrelevance

@davidallengreen: "Where's Florence," asked one supporter of the Prime Minister.

"With Dougal and Zebedee," answered another.

@AndreaMann: Re May's speech: If the headlines tomorrow aren't 'Florence and the machine', we will have have failed as a nation.

Ishmael_Z

another_richard said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Isn't it a tragedy that we stopped building slums-in-the-sky and edge of conurbation sink estates and even more so the slums-in-the-sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

Council housing was of variable quality. Some of it (like the Watling Estate in Burnt Oak) was excellent. Some of it (like neighbouring Graeme Park) was jerry-built rubbish.

Wasn't there a tendency for the proportion of jerry-built rubbish to increase during the later stages of council house building ?

"An unusual feature of Japanese housing is that houses are presumed to have a limited lifespan, and are generally torn down and rebuilt after a few decades, generally twenty years for wooden buildings and thirty years for concrete buildings." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Japan

I have often wondered why this works for them and not for us. If jerry-building is a serious concern why not embrace it by adopting the Japanese model? Good long-term employment implications.

Sunil_Prasannan

Terrible, terrible 80s music pun from our resident Yorkshire-accented former public schoolboy

rottenborough

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

OchEye said:

Interesting article on the blame placed on the US Sub-Prime market causing the collapse in 2008. Looks like it wasn't so simple as everyone was led to believe:

https://qz.com/1064061/house-flippers-triggered-the-us-housing-market-crash-not-poor-subprime-borrowers-a-new-study-shows/?utm_source=qzfb

Didn't the collapse come, however, when major banks realised they couldn't quantify their own 'assets' (i.e. the parcelled up packages of mortgage debt that had all been rated A+ or whatever, when in fact they contained some dodgy loans)? Wholesale credit markets then froze as banks would not lend to other banks.

It was the parcelling up and the rating agency flaws that were the major issue.

The failing of the rating agencies is truly jaw dropping.

If I remember rightly from the brilliant 'The Big Short' book: the agencies lost any decent number crunchers to the banks all the time as the rewards were so great.

619

Goupillon said:

Next week Theresa will be sharing her latest vision on Brexit with Florence:
https://www.theguardian.com/…/theresa-may-to-deliver-brexit…
As far as I am aware the only other time Florence saw a cow flying a kite was when Ermintrude did it in The Magic Roundabout:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMpu8jH1LE8

Don't call it a reboot...

Slackbladder

I see James Chapman's pills have kicked in for a while.

TOPPING

another_richard said:

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Ted Cruz is in trouble for "liking" a hardcore porn Tweet.

He blames the left.

The right was busy at the time...

I see that you declined two days running to say whether you think 5.1% HPI is a good or a bad thing.

Can we hope for a response today ?

A simple 'Rising house prices are good' or 'Rising house prices are bad' would suffice.

I suppose you could ask Osborne Central for a handy tweet to copy and paste but it would be nice to read your own thoughts.

Allow me to step in with my answer. Rising hose prices are both good and bad.

They are good because rising house prices = feelgood factor = continued or increased consumer spending = 2/3rds of our GDP = "strong" economy.

They are bad because they prevent people from buying in the first place = send them back home to live with their parents; or = push up the rental market = general malaise and frustration in the economy.

Rising house prices might have good aspects when they are generally low but that doesn't apply to most of the UK at present.

When house prices are high they act as a block on socioeconomic mobility, lock too much capital into a non-productive asset and increase inequality by transferring wealth to the old and the rich.

I think UK homeowners are getting good at extracting capital from their home equity. Whether another pair of Jimmy Choos are a productive asset is open to debate.

TOPPING

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Ted Cruz is in trouble for "liking" a hardcore porn Tweet.

He blames the left.

The right was busy at the time...

I see that you declined two days running to say whether you think 5.1% HPI is a good or a bad thing.

Can we hope for a response today ?

A simple 'Rising house prices are good' or 'Rising house prices are bad' would suffice.

I suppose you could ask Osborne Central for a handy tweet to copy and paste but it would be nice to read your own thoughts.

Allow me to step in with my answer. Rising hose prices are both good and bad.

They are good because rising house prices = feelgood factor = continued or increased consumer spending = 2/3rds of our GDP = "strong" economy.

They are bad because they prevent people from buying in the first place = send them back home to live with their parents; or = push up the rental market = general malaise and frustration in the economy.

I'd be more precise than that.

House prices rising at more than 3x the increase in the average wage rate (as a rule of thumb) is bad.

They should increase slightly (because of the feel good factor) but at a rate which deflates the average purchase multiple gently over time

I think that is sensible.

Edit: how you do it is of course the $64 question.

rottenborough

619 said:

Goupillon said:

Next week Theresa will be sharing her latest vision on Brexit with Florence:
https://www.theguardian.com/…/theresa-may-to-deliver-brexit…
As far as I am aware the only other time Florence saw a cow flying a kite was when Ermintrude did it in The Magic Roundabout:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMpu8jH1LE8

Don't call it a reboot...

Renaissance reboot.

JohnLoony

"... Sex tapes are notoriously badly lit,..."

How do you know?!?

Charles

Goupillon said:

Next week Theresa will be sharing her latest vision on Brexit with Florence:
https://www.theguardian.com/…/theresa-may-to-deliver-brexit…
As far as I am aware the only other time Florence saw a cow flying a kite was when Ermintrude did it in The Magic Roundabout:

That's an unnecessarily unpleasant post to make at this time of the morning.

You may not like or agree with the PM, but why call her a "cow"?

Charles

Ishmael_Z said:

another_richard said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Isn't it a tragedy that we stopped building slums-in-the-sky and edge of conurbation sink estates and even more so the slums-in-the-sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

Council housing was of variable quality. Some of it (like the Watling Estate in Burnt Oak) was excellent. Some of it (like neighbouring Graeme Park) was jerry-built rubbish.

Wasn't there a tendency for the proportion of jerry-built rubbish to increase during the later stages of council house building ?

"An unusual feature of Japanese housing is that houses are presumed to have a limited lifespan, and are generally torn down and rebuilt after a few decades, generally twenty years for wooden buildings and thirty years for concrete buildings." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Japan

I have often wondered why this works for them and not for us. If jerry-building is a serious concern why not embrace it by adopting the Japanese model? Good long-term employment implications.

Climate (plus our houses are brick built and have been since 1667).

I still struggle with living in a wood house in California...

Allan

Some negative reactions from German media to Juncker.
"Most German papers focused on Juncker’s call for all EU members to adopt the euro. Süddeutsche Zeitung noted the proposal was contrary to the stance taken by the French and German governments, who don’t want a rerun of the Greek debt crisis in countries that join the euro with dubious finances. Frankfurter Allgemeine labeled Juncker’s proposals thus: “More euro, more Brussels, more money.” In a scathing opinion piece on its front page, right-leaning Die Welt called Juncker’s plans “absurd,” asking on which “star the EU spaceship and its captain Juncker have spent the past years.”"
http://www.politico.eu/article/europes-papers-pick-apart-junckers-state-of-the-union/

Allan

BBC News interpretation of employee impartiality

Chris Cook‏Verified account @xtophercook
May's speech is in Florence. Great idea - I can't think of any jokes about going to a once-major banking hub that drifted into irrelevance
11:55 pm - 13 Sep 2017

Casino_Royale

Allan said:

Some negative reactions from German media to Juncker.
"Most German papers focused on Juncker’s call for all EU members to adopt the euro. Süddeutsche Zeitung noted the proposal was contrary to the stance taken by the French and German governments, who don’t want a rerun of the Greek debt crisis in countries that join the euro with dubious finances. Frankfurter Allgemeine labeled Juncker’s proposals thus: “More euro, more Brussels, more money.” In a scathing opinion piece on its front page, right-leaning Die Welt called Juncker’s plans “absurd,” asking on which “star the EU spaceship and its captain Juncker have spent the past years.”"
http://www.politico.eu/article/europes-papers-pick-apart-junckers-state-of-the-union/

Germany will act in German interests. Since they form the economic core of the EU, and bankroll the Eurozone, this will tend to carry a lot of weight.

Casino_Royale

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Ted Cruz is in trouble for "liking" a hardcore porn Tweet.

He blames the left.

The right was busy at the time...

I see that you declined two days running to say whether you think 5.1% HPI is a good or a bad thing.

Can we hope for a response today ?

A simple 'Rising house prices are good' or 'Rising house prices are bad' would suffice.

I suppose you could ask Osborne Central for a handy tweet to copy and paste but it would be nice to read your own thoughts.

Allow me to step in with my answer. Rising hose prices are both good and bad.

They are good because rising house prices = feelgood factor = continued or increased consumer spending = 2/3rds of our GDP = "strong" economy.

They are bad because they prevent people from buying in the first place = send them back home to live with their parents; or = push up the rental market = general malaise and frustration in the economy.

I'd be more precise than that.

House prices rising at more than 3x the increase in the average wage rate (as a rule of thumb) is bad.

They should increase slightly (because of the feel good factor) but at a rate which deflates the average purchase multiple gently over time

I think that is sensible.

Edit: how you do it is of course the $64 question.

If I can get an answer for £50, I might just fork out.

Ishmael_Z

Charles said:

Ishmael_Z said:

another_richard said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T, this is the sort of thing to tackle the housing crisis that I grew up with and I've been arguing for since years:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/14/build-to-rent-the-solution-to-britains-housing-crisis

Wasn’t something like that called Council Housing in a far away land, long, long ago? Until a wicked witch decreed that long-term renting was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Isn't it a tragedy that we stopped building slums-in-the-sky and edge of conurbation sink estates and even more so the slums-in-the-sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

Council housing was of variable quality. Some of it (like the Watling Estate in Burnt Oak) was excellent. Some of it (like neighbouring Graeme Park) was jerry-built rubbish.

Wasn't there a tendency for the proportion of jerry-built rubbish to increase during the later stages of council house building ?

"An unusual feature of Japanese housing is that houses are presumed to have a limited lifespan, and are generally torn down and rebuilt after a few decades, generally twenty years for wooden buildings and thirty years for concrete buildings." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Japan

I have often wondered why this works for them and not for us. If jerry-building is a serious concern why not embrace it by adopting the Japanese model? Good long-term employment implications.

Climate (plus our houses are brick built and have been since 1667).

I still struggle with living in a wood house in California...

What with fires and termites I am surprised you sleep a wink. But Japanese concrete is presumably as durable as other kinds, and it still seems they knock it down after 30 years.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

Rising house prices might have good aspects when they are generally low but that doesn't apply to most of the UK at present.

When house prices are high they act as a block on socioeconomic mobility, lock too much capital into a non-productive asset and increase inequality by transferring wealth to the old and the rich.

Wasn't the news the other day that in most of the country earnings are growing faster than house prices? That is good news.

In most places, housing has become more affordable, since 2007, but in London and the South East, far less so.

I think rents are very high too.

Small hypocrite warning: I'm just about (god willing) to rent out my 2-bed semi to tenants at a monthly rent (£1,000pcm) that's over £200pcm more than my full repayment mortgage was on a 12 year term. That's in the South-East, of course.

It works if you have 2 x working adults living there (paying £500pcm each) but it doesn't leave much room for saving for a deposit unless you are earning decent money.

TOPPING

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

Rising house prices might have good aspects when they are generally low but that doesn't apply to most of the UK at present.

When house prices are high they act as a block on socioeconomic mobility, lock too much capital into a non-productive asset and increase inequality by transferring wealth to the old and the rich.

Wasn't the news the other day that in most of the country earnings are growing faster than house prices? That is good news.

In most places, housing has become more affordable, since 2007, but in London and the South East, far less so.

I think rents are very high too.

Small hypocrite warning: I'm just about (god willing) to rent out my 2-bed semi to tenants at a monthly rent (£1,000pcm) that's over £200pcm more than my full repayment mortgage was on a 12 year term. That's in the South-East, of course.

It works if you have 2 x working adults living there (paying £500pcm each) but it doesn't leave much room for saving for a deposit unless you are earning decent money.

Lucky @MaxPB Isn't here. He'd have your guts for garters.

Allan

Casino_Royale said:

Allan said:

Some negative reactions from German media to Juncker.
"Most German papers focused on Juncker’s call for all EU members to adopt the euro. Süddeutsche Zeitung noted the proposal was contrary to the stance taken by the French and German governments, who don’t want a rerun of the Greek debt crisis in countries that join the euro with dubious finances. Frankfurter Allgemeine labeled Juncker’s proposals thus: “More euro, more Brussels, more money.” In a scathing opinion piece on its front page, right-leaning Die Welt called Juncker’s plans “absurd,” asking on which “star the EU spaceship and its captain Juncker have spent the past years.”"
http://www.politico.eu/article/europes-papers-pick-apart-junckers-state-of-the-union/

Germany will act in German interests. Since they form the economic core of the EU, and bankroll the Eurozone, this will tend to carry a lot of weight.

It does improve the chances of removing Juncker, if his vision is out of line with mainstream German views. No sense in trying to expand the eurozone if the German bankers are not behind it.

Casino_Royale

TOPPING said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

Rising house prices might have good aspects when they are generally low but that doesn't apply to most of the UK at present.

When house prices are high they act as a block on socioeconomic mobility, lock too much capital into a non-productive asset and increase inequality by transferring wealth to the old and the rich.

Wasn't the news the other day that in most of the country earnings are growing faster than house prices? That is good news.

In most places, housing has become more affordable, since 2007, but in London and the South East, far less so.

I think rents are very high too.

Small hypocrite warning: I'm just about (god willing) to rent out my 2-bed semi to tenants at a monthly rent (£1,000pcm) that's over £200pcm more than my full repayment mortgage was on a 12 year term. That's in the South-East, of course.

It works if you have 2 x working adults living there (paying £500pcm each) but it doesn't leave much room for saving for a deposit unless you are earning decent money.

Lucky @MaxPB Isn't here. He'd have your guts for garters.

It's the market rent and I have a mortgage to re-pay.

I'm not going to sacrifice myself £200pcm of rental income for the good of my health, am I?

The agent did want me to put it on at £1,100pcm if that's any consolation, which I refused as I thought it too greedy, so I take some solace in that.

DavidL

Goupillon said:

Next week Theresa will be sharing her latest vision on Brexit with Florence:
https://www.theguardian.com/…/theresa-may-to-deliver-brexit…
As far as I am aware the only other time Florence saw a cow flying a kite was when Ermintrude did it in The Magic Roundabout:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMpu8jH1LE8

The episode is called Ermintrude's folly. It just gets better. Time to sack the next generation of advisors?

Casino_Royale

Allan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Allan said:

Some negative reactions from German media to Juncker.
"Most German papers focused on Juncker’s call for all EU members to adopt the euro. Süddeutsche Zeitung noted the proposal was contrary to the stance taken by the French and German governments, who don’t want a rerun of the Greek debt crisis in countries that join the euro with dubious finances. Frankfurter Allgemeine labeled Juncker’s proposals thus: “More euro, more Brussels, more money.” In a scathing opinion piece on its front page, right-leaning Die Welt called Juncker’s plans “absurd,” asking on which “star the EU spaceship and its captain Juncker have spent the past years.”"
http://www.politico.eu/article/europes-papers-pick-apart-junckers-state-of-the-union/

Germany will act in German interests. Since they form the economic core of the EU, and bankroll the Eurozone, this will tend to carry a lot of weight.

It does improve the chances of removing Juncker, if his vision is out of line with mainstream German views. No sense in trying to expand the eurozone if the German bankers are not behind it.

The Germans will be receptive to further EU integration when it suits them.

Right now, they get it by stealth (on their terms, when it suits them): for example, we invite a million "Syrian refugees" in, it goes a bit wrong, the EU helps us sort it out by making it a European problem and imposing quotas on other EU states to help deal with it.

Why would they want to replace that with a treaty that makes that all subject to QMV where they could, theoretically, be outvoted?

Big_G_NorthWales

Wow - what a bad tempered row between Lord Falconner and Adam Boulton just now on Sky News over the Fox takeover. The left are terrified by the thought of the Murdochs taking control and Adam Boulton strongly defending them as employers

DavidL

Is it just possible that Mrs May read @Cyclefree's brilliant header on here about us just talking to ourselves a few days ago and decided, right, I'll go and speak to someone else, that'll show Mrs Clever clogs. And she's of Italian extraction as well so we will go there. Hah!

This is my best theory to date but it is still a work in progress.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

I still can't get over the fact that TSE is such an expert on the quality of sex tapes. Who'd have thought?

Well I did write this shortly before the EU referendum.

What of David Cameron? With this referendum he must be feeling like the couple who agreed to make home made porn. It sounded like a good idea at the time, he thought it would be fun to do, but now as he sits back and views his production, he must be thinking this hasn’t turned out how he expected it to turn out, whilst regretting his initial descision and feeling a bit nauseous about it all.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/14/a-reminder-from-16-months-ago-about-the-danger-of-reading-too-much-into-one-day-of-polling/

Casino_Royale

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Wow - what a bad tempered row between Lord Falconner and Adam Boulton just now on Sky News over the Fox takeover. The left are terrified by the thought of the Murdochs taking control and Adam Boulton strongly defending them as employers

I think paranoia about Murdoch is the Left's version of the Illuminati, or the Freemasons.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

I still can't get over the fact that TSE is such an expert on the quality of sex tapes. Who'd have thought?

Well I did write this shortly before the EU referendum.

What of David Cameron? With this referendum he must be feeling like the couple who agreed to make home made porn. It sounded like a good idea at the time, he thought it would be fun to do, but now as he sits back and views his production, he must be thinking this hasn’t turned out how he expected it to turn out, whilst regretting his initial descision and feeling a bit nauseous about it all.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/14/a-reminder-from-16-months-ago-about-the-danger-of-reading-too-much-into-one-day-of-polling/

If there is any home made videos with Sam Cam in them... no, I am not going there.

Ishmael_Z

Wrong threader title btw, if any filming took place it probably took place Back in the USSR.

Ishmael_Z

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

I still can't get over the fact that TSE is such an expert on the quality of sex tapes. Who'd have thought?

Well I did write this shortly before the EU referendum.

What of David Cameron? With this referendum he must be feeling like the couple who agreed to make home made porn. It sounded like a good idea at the time, he thought it would be fun to do, but now as he sits back and views his production, he must be thinking this hasn’t turned out how he expected it to turn out, whilst regretting his initial descision and feeling a bit nauseous about it all.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/14/a-reminder-from-16-months-ago-about-the-danger-of-reading-too-much-into-one-day-of-polling/

If there is any home made videos with Sam Cam in them... no, I am not going there.

Caught on the Sam Cam cam...