Surely it must be every right thinking persons job to block Boris from becoming PM.
Depends on who the alternative is. In a Fox v Boris contest.....
(admittedly, that would require some very weird voting by the MPs!)
You know, my not-too-interested-in-politics-but-generally-a-good-judge-of-how-things-are-going-to-go cousin mentioned Fox as a serious candidate for next PM.
Makes me remember how all in the bubble we are....
Has they forgotten that Fox is a disgraced national security risk?
Not what you need when you’re trying to focus a general election campaign on Jeremy Corbyn being a risk to the safety of the country.
Surely it must be every right thinking persons job to block Boris from becoming PM.
Depends on who the alternative is. In a Fox v Boris contest.....
(admittedly, that would require some very weird voting by the MPs!)
You know, my not-too-interested-in-politics-but-generally-a-good-judge-of-how-things-are-going-to-go cousin mentioned Fox as a serious candidate for next PM.
Makes me remember how all in the bubble we are....
Your cousin IS Fox, and I claim my £5....
There can be no other explanation!
Lol.
He has been around for a while and people (well, my cousin at least) have forgotten that he was forced to resign.
I’m actually told he’s quite popular amongst MPs, too.
Can’t see it myself, but if there is a contest I expect he’ll stand.
I see no reason at all why Rabbis should be afforded special status. Many of them are extremely politically motivated.
No-one should be afforded special status just because. But shooting the messenger rather than listening to the message is a stupid policy if you genuinely want to deal with the issues.
Those who criticised newspapers and Leavers for attacking judges or Gina Miller or Ivan Rogers who brought unwelcome messages and not listening to what they said are not best placed to justify Labour doing exactly what they criticised Brexiteers for doing.
I think Mr Meeks has a word to describe such people.
All the rabbis run collections for Israel in Synagogue at all the major Jewish holidays. That 68 should object to Corbyn's support for the Palestinians should at least be put into some sort of context. I've no idea whether Corbyn is antisemitic or not but for the vast majority of the Rabbinate Israel is completely integral to what being Jewish is all about. Corbyn is being asked to do something that is impossible and the criticism of him is being carried along on that wave of ignorance.
At my church we are regularly asked to put money in collections for groups abroad, including Palestinian Christians. That says nothing about the political views of either the priests or their congregations. Rabbis have doubtless been raising money for Israel when the majority of British Jews voted Labour.
Corbyn is being asked not to be anti-semitic not to stop supporting the Palestinian cause. It is possible to do the latter without being anti-semitic. There is nothing impossible about it. See, for instance, Daniel Barenboim who with his orchestra of Jews and Palestinians has probably done more to bring about reconciliation than anything Corbyn has ever done.
As a secondary issue he is also being asked to listen (note: listen not agree with) to those on the other side of the issue and to visit Israel, to which he has been invited by the Israeli government. Nothing impossible about that either. Indeed, a man of peace (as he regularly proclaims himself to be) who will speak to anyone (as he also regularly reminds us) in the pursuit of peace would have done this already and would be anxious to do it now, to show how wrong his critics are.
There is nothing impossible about what he is being asked to do. It is the will which is lacking.
He would no sooner go to Israel to listen to them as he would agree to be a guest at a meeting of Theresa May’s Cabinet.
The ludicrous mortgage affordability rules were put in place in part to stop the disasters of 2008. If you loosen them you risk repeating previous property boom and bust (and bank boom and bust) mistakes. The rules may well need looking at again but they weren’t put in place to screw over the young but to bring some sanity to our housing market and to curb the tendency of banks to invest in housing rather than, say, more productive areas of the economy.
Something definitely needs doing about the rental sector.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have screwed over the young - an entire generation. There was nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages. The current situation has left the Millennials paying off the mortgages of Gen X.
SNIP
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal.
I say again, there is nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages, if you are sustainably employed and can afford the payments. I bought my first flat in London in 2007 with an 100% home loan. I now have an equity stake of ~£300,000 in a four-bedroomed Edwardian home in a nice London suburb while my Millennial colleagues are paying more a month in rent for a shared flat, paying off the mortgage of someone else.
The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
I don’t have a blind spot. I do have 40 years experience of what the property market can do and 100% mortgages are not the answer. Your equity is caused by inflation. House price inflation is not a good thing even though house prices going up is seen by estate agents and owners as wonderful. That just shows how distorted our view of what buying a house should be about has become.
Other measures are needed. The blind spot is in failing to understand this and taking these measures, in part because those with equity (like you) will suffer.
Why do you think equity is a bad thing? Most small and micro businesses in the country would not have access to capital without that equity. Our property market is excessively volatile but those in secure employment are not at risk with a 100% mortgage. They just keep paying the bill.
I see no reason at all why Rabbis should be afforded special status. Many of them are extremely politically motivated.
No-one should be afforded special status just because. But shooting the messenger rather than listening to the message is a stupid policy if you genuinely want to deal with the issues.
Those who criticised newspapers and Leavers for attacking judges or Gina Miller or Ivan Rogers who brought unwelcome messages and not listening to what they said are not best placed to justify Labour doing exactly what they criticised Brexiteers for doing.
I think Mr Meeks has a word to describe such people.
All the rabbis run collections for Israel in Synagogue at all the major Jewish holidays. That 68 should object to Corbyn's support for the Palestinians should at least be put into some sort of context. I've no idea whether Corbyn is antisemitic or not but for the vast majority of the Rabbinate Israel is completely integral to what being Jewish is all about. Corbyn is being asked to do something that is impossible and the criticism of him is being carried along on that wave of ignorance.
At my church we are regularly asked to put money in collections for groups abroad, including Palestinian Christians. That says nothing about the political views of either the priests or their congregations. Rabbis have doubtless been raising money for Israel when the majority of British Jews voted Labour.
Corbyn is being asked not to be anti-semitic not to stop supporting the Palestinian cause. It is possible to do the latter without being anti-semitic. There is nothing impossible about it. See, for instance, Daniel Barenboim who with his orchestra of Jews and Palestinians has probably done more to bring about reconciliation than anything Corbyn has ever done.
As a secondary issue he is also being asked to listen (note: listen not agree with) to those on the other side of the issue and to visit Israel, to which he has been invited by the Israeli government. Nothing impossible about that either. Indeed, a man of peace (as he regularly proclaims himself to be) who will speak to anyone (as he also regularly reminds us) in the pursuit of peace would have done this already and would be anxious to do it now, to show how wrong his critics are.
There is nothing impossible about what he is being asked to do. It is the will which is lacking.
He would no sooner go to Israel to listen to them as he would agree to be a guest at a meeting of Theresa May’s Cabinet.
So his claims of talking to all sides are just lies?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have screwed over the young - an entire generation. There was nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages. The current situation has left the Millennials paying off the mortgages of Gen X.
SNIP
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal.
I say again, there is nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages, if you are sustainably employed and can afford the payments. I bought my first flat in London in 2007 with an 100% home loan. I now have an equity stake of ~£300,000 in a four-bedroomed Edwardian home in a nice London suburb while my Millennial colleagues are paying more a month in rent for a shared flat, paying off the mortgage of someone else.
The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
I don’t have a blind spot. I do have 40 years experience of what the property market can do and 100% mortgages are not the answer. Your equity is caused by inflation. House price inflation is not a good thing even though house prices going up is seen by estate agents and owners as wonderful. That just shows how distorted our view of what buying a house should be about has become.
Other measures are needed. The blind spot is in failing to understand this and taking these measures, in part because those with equity (like you) will suffer.
We saw very clearly in the early ‘90s what happens when people are upside-down on large mortgages, and we saw a decade ago what happens when the banks screw up.
AIUI London prices are already starting to slowly fall, if they start falling say 5% per year then banks won’t be lending more than 75% LTV on anything. If they start falling 10% per year then banks won’t go higher than about 60%. There needs to be a period of adjustment, and it’s likely to be five years or so.
I don’t have a blind spot. I do have 40 years experience of what the property market can do and 100% mortgages are not the answer. Your equity is caused by inflation. House price inflation is not a good thing even though house prices going up is seen by estate agents and owners as wonderful. That just shows how distorted our view of what buying a house should be about has become.
Other measures are needed. The blind spot is in failing to understand this and taking these measures, in part because those with equity (like you) will suffer.
Why do you think equity is a bad thing? Most small and micro businesses in the country would not have access to capital without that equity. Our property market is excessively volatile but those in secure employment are not at risk with a 100% mortgage. They just keep paying the bill.
@Cyclefree has identified equity through inflation as a bad thing, you've identified equity as a bad thing... Not all housing equity has been earnt through HPI (Pretty much 100% of mine is not through HPI - though I accept I may well be the exception that proves the rule)
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal.
I say again, there is nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages, if you are sustainably employed and can afford the payments. I bought my first flat in London in 2007 with an 100% home loan. I now have an equity stake of ~£300,000 in a four-bedroomed Edwardian home in a nice London suburb while my Millennial colleagues are paying more a month in rent for a shared flat, paying off the mortgage of someone else.
The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
I don’t have a blind spot. I do have 40 years experience of what the property market can do and 100% mortgages are not the answer. Your equity is caused by inflation. House price inflation is not a good thing even though house prices going up is seen by estate agents and owners as wonderful. That just shows how distorted our view of what buying a house should be about has become.
Other measures are needed. The blind spot is in failing to understand this and taking these measures, in part because those with equity (like you) will suffer.
Why do you think equity is a bad thing? Most small and micro businesses in the country would not have access to capital without that equity. Our property market is excessively volatile but those in secure employment are not at risk with a 100% mortgage. They just keep paying the bill.
When that equity is a result of a house price inflation rate many multiples of the economy’s inflation rate, it seems to me to result in distortion of the economy and investment decisions. Equity as a result of paying down the debt and/or improving the property is a good thing. But I do not understand why as an economy we tolerate a house price inflation rate which would have us screaming in panic if it applied to anything else.
Or, rather, I know why. It makes some of us feel “rich” while others are locked out of the market.
No-one should be afforded special status just because. But shooting the messenger rather than listening to the message is a stupid policy if you genuinely want to deal with the issues.
Those who criticised newspapers and Leavers for attacking judges or Gina Miller or Ivan Rogers who brought unwelcome messages and not listening to what they said are not best placed to justify Labour doing exactly what they criticised Brexiteers for doing.
I think Mr Meeks has a word to describe such people.
All the rabbis run collections for Israel in Synagogue at all the major Jewish holidays. That 68 should object to Corbyn's support for the Palestinians should at least be put into some sort of context. I've no idea whether Corbyn is antisemitic or not but for the vast majority of the Rabbinate Israel is completely integral to what being Jewish is all about. Corbyn is being asked to do something that is impossible and the criticism of him is being carried along on that wave of ignorance.
At my church we are regularly asked to put money in collections for groups abroad, including Palestinian Christians. That says nothing about the political views of either the priests or their congregations. Rabbis have doubtless been raising money for Israel when the majority of British Jews voted Labour.
Corbyn is being asked not to be anti-semitic not to stop supporting the Palestinian cause. It is possible to do the latter without being anti-semitic. There is nothing impossible about it. See, for instance, Daniel Barenboim who with his orchestra of Jews and Palestinians has probably done more to bring about reconciliation than anything Corbyn has ever done.
As a secondary issue he is also being asked to listen (note: listen not agree with) to those on the other side of the issue and to visit Israel, to which he has been invited by the Israeli government. Nothing impossible about that either. Indeed, a man of peace (as he regularly proclaims himself to be) who will speak to anyone (as he also regularly reminds us) in the pursuit of peace would have done this already and would be anxious to do it now, to show how wrong his critics are.
There is nothing impossible about what he is being asked to do. It is the will which is lacking.
He would no sooner go to Israel to listen to them as he would agree to be a guest at a meeting of Theresa May’s Cabinet.
So his claims of talking to all sides are just lies?
Do you know, they just might be. Or perhaps he is just very shy about sharing the evidence of such talks/meetings.
I think the BBC have made quite a big mistake in giving up 9am.
Allegedly the BBC has decided that more people want to watch football at 9am on a Sunday.
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
The supply of buyers could have been fixed by the government doing something about the ludicrous mortgage affordability rules which has condemned an entire Millennial generation to spend more on rent than Generation X are paying on their mortgages. Help2Buy is, was and will forever be an unmitigated disaster, pushing up the price of naff new-build mouseholes while my generation pays less for Edwardian homes.
The ludicrous mortgage affordability rules were put in place in part to stop the disasters of 2008. If you loosen them you risk repeating previous property boom and bust (and bank boom and bust) mistakes. The rules may well need looking at again but they weren’t put in place to screw over the young but to bring some sanity to our housing market and to curb the tendency of banks to invest in housing rather than, say, more productive areas of the economy.
Something definitely needs doing about the rental sector.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have screwed over the young - an entire generation. There was nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages. The current situation has left the Millennials paying off the mortgages of Gen X.
SNIP
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal. SNIP The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
I don’t have a blind spot. I do have 40 years experience of what the property market can do and 100% mortgages are not the answer. Your equity is caused by inflation. House price inflation is not a good thing even though house prices going up is seen by estate agents and owners as wonderful. That just shows how distorted our view of what buying a house should be about has become.
Other measures are needed. The blind spot is in failing to understand this and taking these measures, in part because those with equity (like you) will suffer.
It is only partly from house price inflation – much of it is due to our investing in improving the property, an option sadly not open to Generation Rent.
Mr. P, the only two BBC sports programmes that met their targets were F1 and Wimbledon. Wimbledon, of course, is conveniently close to BBC bigwigs, so F1 was sacrificed even though it exceeded its targets by a greater margin.
Even more special was the way the BBC approached Sky, paving the way for the pay TV-only coverage of live races followed by (next year, I think) a full pay TV live season. Cracking value for the licence fee-payer there.
Still, the £30m that another contract would've cost was 'wisely' spent on the concept (NB not the show, just the concept) of The Voice. Which is also not on the BBC any more.
Edited extra bit: cheers, Mr. P.
Mr. L, very unfair. Who else will ask hard-hitting questions like "Will you keep your allotment?"
Not really. The spread of Twitter has allowed any number of people to rant who in the past just shouted at the TV, giving the impression that everyone is ranting. But actually they're not, and although Cyclefree tells us not to attach such weight to politeness, I really value the fact that neither May nor Corbyn abuse anyone and are perfectly capable of talking to people who they share zero values with. I've seen them both talking amicably to people far on the other side.
In Broxtowe, one of the longest cross-party friendships was between one of Dennis Skinner's brothers, Gordon, a man who made Dennis look right-wing, and a senior Tory councillor. They went on walking holidays together, and when Gordon died, the councillor came to his funeral and sat beside me: we sang The Red Flag in his honour. When I mildly teased him about it he said fiercely that of course he was glad to sing it for Gordon. I would have liked to go to the councillor's funeral (which was some years later, when I was abroad) and sing Land of Hope and Glory to return the favour.
At local politics level there can be more friendship across parties than within the same party.
We have had considerable antagonism between the District Council leader and the County Council leader, both in the same party.
There's the old (apocryphal) anecdote about the new MP being given a tour of the house by an old salt. Seeing the chamber, he thrills 'My first sight of the enemy'. 'That's not the enemy lad, that's just the opposition. The enemy is behind you'.
I think the BBC have made quite a big mistake in giving up 9am.
Allegedly the BBC has decided that more people want to watch football at 9am on a Sunday.
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
Cricket Golf Formula 1 Tennis
The BBC and football is a joke
Sky and BT leave then standing. I would not even think of watching BBC for football
The supply of buyers could have been fixed by the government doing something about the ludicrous mortgage affordability rules which has condemned an entire Millennial generation to spend more on rent than Generation X are paying on their mortgages. Help2Buy is, was and will forever be an unmitigated disaster, pushing up the price of naff new-build mouseholes while my generation pays less for Edwardian homes.
The ludicrous mortgage affordability rules were put in place in part to stop the disasters of 2008. If you loosen them you risk repeating previous property boom and bust (and bank boom and bust) mistakes. The rules may well need looking at again but they weren’t put in place to screw over the young but to bring some sanity to our housing market and to curb the tendency of banks to invest in housing rather than, say, more productive areas of the economy.
Something definitely needs doing about the rental sector.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have screwed over the young - an entire generation. There was nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages. The current situation has left the Millennials paying off the mortgages of Gen X.
SNIP
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal. SNIP The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
I don’t have a blind spot. I do have 40 years experience of what the property market can do and 100% mortgages are not the answer. Your equity is caused by inflation. House price inflation is not a good thing even though house prices going up is seen by estate agents and owners as wonderful. That just shows how distorted our view of what buying a house should be about has become.
Other measures are needed. The blind spot is in failing to understand this and taking these measures, in part because those with equity (like you) will suffer.
It is only partly from house price inflation – much of it is due to our investing in improving the property, an option sadly not open to Generation Rent.
Some is. Not as much as people like to think though. Relatively few improvements affect the value of a property.
Not really. The spread of Twitter has allowed any number of people to rant who in the past just shouted at the TV, giving the impression that everyone is ranting. But actually they're not, and although Cyclefree tells us not to attach such weight to politeness, I really value the fact that neither May nor Corbyn abuse anyone and are perfectly capable of talking to people who they share zero values with. I've seen them both talking amicably to people far on the other side.
In Broxtowe, one of the longest cross-party friendships was between one of Dennis Skinner's brothers, Gordon, a man who made Dennis look right-wing, and a senior Tory councillor. They went on walking holidays together, and when Gordon died, the councillor came to his funeral and sat beside me: we sang The Red Flag in his honour. When I mildly teased him about it he said fiercely that of course he was glad to sing it for Gordon. I would have liked to go to the councillor's funeral (which was some years later, when I was abroad) and sing Land of Hope and Glory to return the favour.
At local politics level there can be more friendship across parties than within the same party.
We have had considerable antagonism between the District Council leader and the County Council leader, both in the same party.
There's the old (apocryphal) anecdote about the new MP being given a tour of the house by an old salt. Seeing the chamber, he thrills 'My first sight of the enemy'. 'That's not the enemy lad, that's just the opposition. The enemy is behind you'.
The supply of buyers could have been fixed by the government doing something about the ludicrous mortgage affordability rules which has condemned an entire Millennial generation to spend more on rent than Generation X are paying on their mortgages. Help2Buy is, was and will forever be an unmitigated disaster, pushing up the price of naff new-build mouseholes while my generation pays less for Edwardian homes.
The ludicrous mortgage affordability rules were put in place in part to stop the disasters of 2008. If you loosen them you risk repeating previous property boom and bust (and bank boom and bust) mistakes. The rules may well need looking at again but they weren’t put in place to screw over the young but to bring some sanity to our housing market and to curb the tendency of banks to invest in housing rather than, say, more productive areas of the economy.
Something definitely needs doing about the rental sector.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have screwed over the young - an entire generation. There was nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages. The current situation has left the Millennials paying off the mortgages of Gen X.
SNIP
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal. SNIP The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
SNIP
It is only partly from house price inflation – much of it is due to our investing in improving the property, an option sadly not open to Generation Rent.
Some is. Not as much as people like to think though. Relatively few improvements affect the value of a property.
Our loft conversation (particularly) and kitchen remodelling had a big effect; landscaping the garden made little difference; although we did none of them with the goal selling the house. We are happy where we are!
I don’t have a blind spot. I do have 40 years experience of what the property market can do and 100% mortgages are not the answer. Your equity is caused by inflation. House price inflation is not a good thing even though house prices going up is seen by estate agents and owners as wonderful. That just shows how distorted our view of what buying a house should be about has become.
Other measures are needed. The blind spot is in failing to understand this and taking these measures, in part because those with equity (like you) will suffer.
Why do you think equity is a bad thing? Most small and micro businesses in the country would not have access to capital without that equity. Our property market is excessively volatile but those in secure employment are not at risk with a 100% mortgage. They just keep paying the bill.
@Cyclefree has identified equity through inflation as a bad thing, you've identified equity as a bad thing... Not all housing equity has been earnt through HPI (Pretty much 100% of mine is not through HPI - though I accept I may well be the exception that proves the rule)
@cyclefree makes the point that HPI excludes some from the market and when extreme that is obviously true. My point is that a very large percentage of small businesses would never have got going without that HPI creating capital that those entrepreneurs would not otherwise have had and that has spread wealth in this country.
The inflation effect on debt is much more muted these days than when I first entered the property market 35 years ago but it is still significant and a relatively painless way for most people to build up savings which they would otherwise not achieve.
As a nation we have a chronically poor savings rate (as Robert points out this is why we have such a large trade deficit). If we didn't accumulate wealth in our housing we would on average be in truly desperate straits. It and pension contributions are the ways we, as a nation, save anything at all.
I think the BBC have made quite a big mistake in giving up 9am.
Allegedly the BBC has decided that more people want to watch football at 9am on a Sunday.
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
Cricket Golf Formula 1 Tennis
The BBC and football is a joke
Sky and BT leave then standing. I would not even think of watching BBC for football
Outside the World Cup and Euros there isn't any football on BBC as far as I know?
I think the BBC have made quite a big mistake in giving up 9am.
Allegedly the BBC has decided that more people want to watch football at 9am on a Sunday.
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
Cricket Golf Formula 1 Tennis
The BBC and football is a joke
Sky and BT leave then standing. I would not even think of watching BBC for football
Outside the World Cup and Euros there isn't any football on BBC as far as I know?
My point is that a very large percentage of small businesses would never have got going without that HPI creating capital that those entrepreneurs would not otherwise have had and that has spread wealth in this country.
That can be empirically tested : do countries with lower HPI have lower levels of new business formation
I think the BBC have made quite a big mistake in giving up 9am.
Allegedly the BBC has decided that more people want to watch football at 9am on a Sunday.
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
Cricket Golf Formula 1 Tennis
The BBC and football is a joke
Sky and BT leave then standing. I would not even think of watching BBC for football
Outside the World Cup and Euros there isn't any football on BBC as far as I know?
The supply of buyers could have been fixed by the government doing something about the ludicrous mortgage affordability rules which has condemned an entire Millennial generation to spend more on rent than Generation X are paying on their mortgages. Help2Buy is, was and will forever be an unmitigated disaster, pushing up the price of naff new-build mouseholes while my generation pays less for Edwardian homes.
The ludicrous mortgage affordability rules were put in place in part to stop the disasters of 2008. If you loosen them you risk repeating previous property boom and bust (and bank boom and bust) mistakes. The rules may well need looking at again but they weren’t put in place to screw over the young but to bring some sanity to our housing market and to curb the tendency of banks to invest in housing rather than, say, more productive areas of the economy.
Something definitely needs doing about the rental sector.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have screwed over the young - an entire generation. There was nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages. The current situation has left the Millennials paying off the mortgages of Gen X.
SNIP
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal. SNIP The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
SNIP
It is only partly from house price inflation – much of it is due to our investing in improving the property, an option sadly not open to Generation Rent.
Some is. Not as much as people like to think though. Relatively few improvements affect the value of a property.
Our loft conversation (particularly) and kitchen remodelling had a big effect; landscaping the garden made little difference; although we did none of them with the goal selling the house. We are happy where we are!
I live in a 15th (or so) Century small town, in probably the newest house in the centre. Our car parking (three spaces plus a garage) is probably worth as much as the house itself
I think the BBC have made quite a big mistake in giving up 9am.
Allegedly the BBC has decided that more people want to watch football at 9am on a Sunday.
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
Cricket Golf Formula 1 Tennis
The BBC and football is a joke
Sky and BT leave then standing. I would not even think of watching BBC for football
Outside the World Cup and Euros there isn't any football on BBC as far as I know?
Above all economic competence (note this is on a comparative as opposed to absolute scale). The argument would be that we have fixed the deficit but we still have a debt mountain to address. Don't let Labour go mad yet again.
Potential problems are that we are now somewhat overdue a recession and there may be some short term disruption from Brexit (although I am betting the vast majority will not even notice). Labour may get their act together but that seems a more remote possibility.
Secondly, recognition of the need to prioritise the additional money then coming available. For me the priorities are Social Care, housing, the NHS, student debt, defence in roughly that order. I see no room at all for tax cuts but that does not mean that the burden cannot be switched about a bit by, for example, requiring pensioners to pay NI and a post mortem capital based tax to help to pay for Social Care.
Thirdly, consolidating the outcome of Brexit. What do we actually want to do with these newly acquired powers? So far Gove seems the only one who is even attempting to address that question. There is quite a lot of work to be done here. Also, once things have calmed down a bit, are there areas we would want to cooperate more closely with the EU?
The key to success will be credible leadership that ideally can reach groups beyond the party's usual support. For me that should mean Sajid Javid as PM and Gove as Chancellor.
Brexit will cut across all of those "offers". It's hard for those promoting disruption, trade barriers, ideology over economics to present themselves as safe pairs of hands on the economy. Secondly,the tax take will be reduced as companies offshore and fewer economic migrants come in, so less money to spend and difficult choices on how to cut and not boost welfare. Thirdly dealing with the with the disintegration that is the consequence of Brexit will be all consuming. It won't be consolidation.
We shall see. I think you are exaggerating any Brexit effects by at least an order of magnitude.
These are statements of fact, and should not be controversial. It's not "exaggeration". Leaving an integrated economic system inevitably creates trade barriers. Maybe it's justified for other reasons but you can hardly claim prioritization of the economy. Disintegration by definition is the consequence of no longer being integrated. Fewer taxable workers and less taxable business activity means less money to spend on welfare.
It's amazing how people confuse facts with their opinions or forecasts.
My point is that a very large percentage of small businesses would never have got going without that HPI creating capital that those entrepreneurs would not otherwise have had and that has spread wealth in this country.
That can be empirically tested : do countries with lower HPI have lower levels of new business formation
No idea but they may have a different savings culture than us to compensate. Our idea of a savings culture seems mainly to involve not hitting the credit card limit on more than 1 card in the average month.
What i have seen is that the UK has an exceptionally large number of micro businesses and new businesses compared with most European countries. I am pretty sure HPI plays a part in that but I don't have facts and figures.
Of course, there are legal obligations that have to be paid. But most of those are related to pensions, and are due over a very long period.
I wonder what ongoing financial obligations will be attached to the Brexit deal. May's customs solution of using a 'formula' to calculate payments to the EU could be a convenient way to disguise large sums of money going to Brussels.
I think the BBC have made quite a big mistake in giving up 9am.
Allegedly the BBC has decided that more people want to watch football at 9am on a Sunday.
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
Cricket Golf Formula 1 Tennis
The BBC and football is a joke
Sky and BT leave then standing. I would not even think of watching BBC for football
Outside the World Cup and Euros there isn't any football on BBC as far as I know?
Of course, there are legal obligations that have to be paid. But most of those are related to pensions, and are due over a very long period.
I wonder what ongoing financial obligations will be attached to the Brexit deal. May's customs solution of using a 'formula' to calculate payments to the EU could be a convenient way to disguise large sums of money going to Brussels.
The ludicrous mortgage affordability rules were put in place in part to stop the disasters of 2008. If you loosen them you risk repeating previous property boom and bust (and bank boom and bust) mistakes. The rules may well need looking at again but they weren’t put in place to screw over the young but to bring some sanity to our housing market and to curb the tendency of banks to invest in housing rather than, say, more productive areas of the economy.
Something definitely needs doing about the rental sector.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have screwed over the young - an entire generation. There was nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages. The current situation has left the Millennials paying off the mortgages of Gen X.
SNIP
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal. SNIP The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
SNIP
It is only partly from house price inflation – much of it is due to our investing in improving the property, an option sadly not open to Generation Rent.
Some is. Not as much as people like to think though. Relatively few improvements affect the value of a property.
Our loft conversation (particularly) and kitchen remodelling had a big effect; landscaping the garden made little difference; although we did none of them with the goal selling the house. We are happy where we are!
Good for you. Loft conversions probably add ca. 10% to value. Most homeowners vastly overestimate the value they are adding when they improve. Improvements may make the house more saleable but they do not generally add a specific amount to the value of the house and certainly far less than the amount by which most houses have gone up, in London anyway. Scarcity is far more important.
For the first few years I owned my house I did all the usual stuff: loft, conservatory, kitchen, nice bathrooms etc and as prices were in the doldrums then the value of my house stayed unchanged for years. Which was fine by me as it was - and remains - my home. I still got equity because I was paying down the debt.
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
Of course, there are legal obligations that have to be paid. But most of those are related to pensions, and are due over a very long period.
I wonder what ongoing financial obligations will be attached to the Brexit deal. May's customs solution of using a 'formula' to calculate payments to the EU could be a convenient way to disguise large sums of money going to Brussels.
As they say, money greases the wheels.
How many DUPs a week will May be prepared to offer for a good deal?
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal.
I say again, there is nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages, if you are sustainably employed and can afford the payments. I bought my first flat in London in 2007 with an 100% home loan. I now have an equity stake of ~£300,000 in a four-bedroomed Edwardian home in a nice London suburb while my Millennial colleagues are paying more a month in rent for a shared flat, paying off the mortgage of someone else.
The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
Other measures are needed. The blind spot is in failing to understand this and taking these measures, in part because those with equity (like you) will suffer.
Why do you think equity is a bad thing? Most small and micro businesses in the country would not have access to capital without that equity. Our property market is excessively volatile but those in secure employment are not at risk with a 100% mortgage. They just keep paying the bill.
When that equity is a result of a house price inflation rate many multiples of the economy’s inflation rate, it seems to me to result in distortion of the economy and investment decisions. Equity as a result of paying down the debt and/or improving the property is a good thing. But I do not understand why as an economy we tolerate a house price inflation rate which would have us screaming in panic if it applied to anything else.
Or, rather, I know why. It makes some of us feel “rich” while others are locked out of the market.
Yet you tacitly seem to support exactly those policies that are locking people out of the market. The affordability rules are ludicrous – they were a knee-jerk reaction, executed badly, to the GFC that has condemned an entire generation. The spectacle of wealthy Baby Boomer homeowners in the SE telling Millennials it's for their own good is somewhat unedifying.
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
My point is that a very large percentage of small businesses would never have got going without that HPI creating capital that those entrepreneurs would not otherwise have had and that has spread wealth in this country.
That can be empirically tested : do countries with lower HPI have lower levels of new business formation
That would be a completely useless test. You'd need to build a regression model which accounts for most of the variation in business formation between countries, then see how significant a factor HPI was
The ludicrous mortgage affordability rules were put in place in part to stop the disasters of 2008. If you loosen them you risk repeating previous property boom and bust (and bank boom and bust) mistakes. The rules may well need looking at again but they weren’t put in place to screw over the young but to bring some sanity to our housing market and to curb the tendency of banks to invest in housing rather than, say, more productive areas of the economy.
Something definitely needs doing about the rental sector.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have screwed over the young - an entire generation. There was nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages. The current situation has left the Millennials paying off the mortgages of Gen X.
SNIP
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal. SNIP The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
SNIP
It is only partly from house price inflation – much of it is due to our investing in improving the property, an option sadly not open to Generation Rent.
Some is. Not as much as people like to think though. Relatively few improvements affect the value of a property.
SNIP
SNIP For the first few years I owned my house I did all the usual stuff: loft, conservatory, kitchen, nice bathrooms etc and as prices were in the doldrums then the value of my house stayed unchanged for years. Which was fine by me as it was - and remains - my home. I still got equity because I was paying down the debt.
Our loft conversion was pretty large (we had the perfect Edwardian roof for it, gable end, high apex) and added around 17% to the value of the house. But your wider implication is right – we'd all be better off if people found a home and an area they liked and bought a house to live in, not as some sort of speculative 'investment'. Sadly, that option is not open to many younger people for the reasons we have discussed.
I think the BBC have made quite a big mistake in giving up 9am.
Allegedly the BBC has decided that more people want to watch football at 9am on a Sunday.
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
Cricket Golf Formula 1 Tennis
The BBC and football is a joke
Sky and BT leave then standing. I would not even think of watching BBC for football
I see Amazon Prime has the rights for this year's US Tennis Open.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
In the early sixties when I was an Edinburgh Police Officer we worked from police boxes. We would go on a different set hourly beat from and to the box and if we didn't ring in after the hour, the inspector would come looking for us in the squad car. Of course we had no immediate form of communication other than a public phone.
How times have changed
Hey Big G, did you ever frequent the West End Hotel in Palmerston Place? It was my dad's home from home, and was quite a hang out for polis, mainly to oversee the lock ins I'd guess.
One of my earliest memories was some poor sod having a heart attack and driving into the basement of the hotel, decapitating himself in the process.
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
I think that the only rational conclusion that one can come to about the EU's positioning in what might laughingly be called negotiations is that they really didn't want us to leave and thought that if they made it too hard we would change our mind.
Of course they got and no doubt continue to get lots of encouragement from committed remainers in this country who were happy to sing the praises of the EU for doing nothing, no doubt very skillfully. What has not happened is any real engagement about what the relationship will be with their largest single export market after departure. It's really quite surreal.
There was a moment after one of May's speeches when they finally came to terms with the idea that we meant it but we have slipped back a long way since then.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
The Conservatives are now the party of Brexit. They must own it, and accept that their membership will largely be Brexit supporters.
Something definitely needs doing about the rental sector.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have screwed over the young - an entire generation. There was nothing inherently wrong with 100% mortgages. The current situation has left the Millennials paying off the mortgages of Gen X.
SNIP
There is risk in all things, but the greatest risk of all – that we maroon an entire generation on sky high rents, paying off the second and third properties of the Baby Boom and Gen X – is apparently so acceptable to many that we have embraced it as the new normal. SNIP The Baby Boomers and older Gen X have a real blind spot to this – it's a catastrophe.
SNIP
It is only partly from house price inflation – much of it is due to our investing in improving the property, an option sadly not open to Generation Rent.
Some is. Not as much as people like to think though. Relatively few improvements affect the value of a property.
SNIP
SNIP For the first few years I owned my house I did all the usual stuff: loft, conservatory, kitchen, nice bathrooms etc and as prices were in the doldrums then the value of my house stayed unchanged for years. Which was fine by me as it was - and remains - my home. I still got equity because I was paying down the debt.
Our loft conversion was pretty large (we had the perfect Edwardian roof for it, gable end, high apex) and added around 17% to the value of the house. But your wider implication is right – we'd all be better off if people found a home and an area they liked and bought a house to live in, not as some sort of speculative 'investment'. Sadly, that option is not open to many younger people for the reasons we have discussed.
Outside of Greater London, I think that option is open to quite a lot of young people.
When that equity is a result of a house price inflation rate many multiples of the economy’s inflation rate, it seems to me to result in distortion of the economy and investment decisions. Equity as a result of paying down the debt and/or improving the property is a good thing. But I do not understand why as an economy we tolerate a house price inflation rate which would have us screaming in panic if it applied to anything else.
Or, rather, I know why. It makes some of us feel “rich” while others are locked out of the market.
Yep. There's no such thing as a housing ladder, there's a housing pyramid. House prices only go up because demand from people at a lower level outstrips supply at your level. And at the bottom, it's all being driven on the backs people who can't afford to buy at all. The idea that it's a ladder than can lift everyone is exactly the same kind of deception used to sell pyramid schemes.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
My point is that a very large percentage of small businesses would never have got going without that HPI creating capital that those entrepreneurs would not otherwise have had and that has spread wealth in this country.
That can be empirically tested : do countries with lower HPI have lower levels of new business formation
No idea but they may have a different savings culture than us to compensate. Our idea of a savings culture seems mainly to involve not hitting the credit card limit on more than 1 card in the average month.
What i have seen is that the UK has an exceptionally large number of micro businesses and new businesses compared with most European countries. I am pretty sure HPI plays a part in that but I don't have facts and figures.
Does the, apparently, exceptionally high number of self-employed account for the high 'employment level’? Thus a man may not have regular paid work but works on a casual basis (often cash-in-hand as, in the suburbs, a jobbing gardener. Rather like the self employed contractor to a delivery company, who, in a rational world would be an employee. Meanwhile the gardeners wife is a ‘casual' cleaner.
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
It's a smokescreen. The Withdrawal Agreement has almost nothing to do with the EU's position on the future relationship.
Of course it does. Quite apart from the political reality, which makes it inconceivable that we would pay anything without outline agreement on the future relationship, and the Irish border issue, which is impossible to even begin discussing without knowing what regulatory regimes the border is supposed to demarcate, there is the plain text of Article 50.
Why do you think equity is a bad thing? Most small and micro businesses in the country would not have access to capital without that equity. Our property market is excessively volatile but those in secure employment are not at risk with a 100% mortgage. They just keep paying the bill.
When that equity is a result of a house price inflation rate many multiples of the economy’s inflation rate, it seems to me to result in distortion of the economy and investment decisions. Equity as a result of paying down the debt and/or improving the property is a good thing. But I do not understand why as an economy we tolerate a house price inflation rate which would have us screaming in panic if it applied to anything else.
Or, rather, I know why. It makes some of us feel “rich” while others are locked out of the market.
Yet you tacitly seem to support exactly those policies that are locking people out of the market. The affordability rules are ludicrous – they were a knee-jerk reaction, executed badly, to the GFC that has condemned an entire generation. The spectacle of wealthy Baby Boomer homeowners in the SE telling Millennials it's for their own good is somewhat unedifying.
On the contrary: I think we should do something to move away from policies which benefit people like me at the expense of my children - and listed some of the areas where policies are needed above.
The affordability rules are not ludicrous - and may well need looking at again. But people underestimate how much it really costs to own a home - it is not just the mortgage - and making people really work out what their outgoings are and what they can really afford is sensible. If that means that house prices come down, even quite significantly, then I will be cheering because it will make life much much easier for my children, even if it reduces my notional “wealth”.
In the early sixties when I was an Edinburgh Police Officer we worked from police boxes. We would go on a different set hourly beat from and to the box and if we didn't ring in after the hour, the inspector would come looking for us in the squad car. Of course we had no immediate form of communication other than a public phone.
How times have changed
Hey Big G, did you ever frequent the West End Hotel in Palmerston Place? It was my dad's home from home, and was quite a hang out for polis, mainly to oversee the lock ins I'd guess.
One of my earliest memories was some poor sod having a heart attack and driving into the basement of the hotel, decapitating himself in the process.
I was based in Tollcross and covered the area down to Princess Street and upto the Meadows.
Actually I only had a short period in the police as my Father who was retiring from the Prudential in Dalkeith decided to buy a business here in North Wales and all the family moved south with him and we ran the business.
However, I did not leave the police because of the job which I was really enjoying, but the opportunity at the time to run our own family business was key
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
The Conservatives are now the party of Brexit. They must own it, and accept that their membership will largely be Brexit supporters.
Of course, which is exactly why we don't want Kippers wanting to wreck it.
When that equity is a result of a house price inflation rate many multiples of the economy’s inflation rate, it seems to me to result in distortion of the economy and investment decisions. Equity as a result of paying down the debt and/or improving the property is a good thing. But I do not understand why as an economy we tolerate a house price inflation rate which would have us screaming in panic if it applied to anything else.
Or, rather, I know why. It makes some of us feel “rich” while others are locked out of the market.
Yep. There's no such thing as a housing ladder, there's a housing pyramid. House prices only go up because demand from people at a lower level outstrips supply at your level. And at the bottom, it's all being driven on the backs people who can't afford to buy at all. The idea that it's a ladder than can lift everyone is exactly the same kind of deception used to sell pyramid schemes.
When I were a lad, the normal thing for the first few years, while the couple decided where they wanted to be, was rent. Our first flat..... admittedly a cheap one, cost us £2 per week. Mind a teacher got £900 pa.
I think the BBC have made quite a big mistake in giving up 9am.
Allegedly the BBC has decided that more people want to watch football at 9am on a Sunday.
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
Cricket Golf Formula 1 Tennis
The BBC and football is a joke
Sky and BT leave then standing. I would not even think of watching BBC for football
I see Amazon Prime has the rights for this year's US Tennis Open.
They are starting to make an impact on Sport.
I think in the next few years Amazon and other big media players will swamp Sky and BT
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
I think that the only rational conclusion that one can come to about the EU's positioning in what might laughingly be called negotiations is that they really didn't want us to leave and thought that if they made it too hard we would change our mind.
Of course they got and no doubt continue to get lots of encouragement from committed remainers in this country who were happy to sing the praises of the EU for doing nothing, no doubt very skillfully. What has not happened is any real engagement about what the relationship will be with their largest single export market after departure. It's really quite surreal.
There was a moment after one of May's speeches when they finally came to terms with the idea that we meant it but we have slipped back a long way since then.
TBH I think it's more that they've put their heads in the sand and haven't really got serious yet.
Above all economic competence (note this is on a comparative as opposed to absolute scale). The argument would be that we have fixed the deficit but we still have a debt mountain to address. Don't let Labour go mad yet again.
Potential problems are that we are now somewhat overdue a recession and there may be some short term disruption from Brexit (although I am betting the vast majority will not even notice). Labour may get their act together but that seems a more remote possibility.
Secondly, recognition of the need to prioritise the additional money then coming available. For me the priorities are Social Care, housing, the NHS, student debt, defence in roughly that order. I see no room at all for tax cuts but that does not mean that the burden cannot be switched about a bit by, for example, requiring pensioners to pay NI and a post mortem capital based tax to help to pay for Social Care.
Thirdly, consolidating the outcome of Brexit. What do we actually want to do with these newly acquired powers? So far Gove seems the only one who is even attempting to address that question. There is quite a lot of work to be done here. Also, once things have calmed down a bit, are there areas we would want to cooperate more closely with the EU?
The key to success will be credible leadership that ideally can reach groups beyond the party's usual support. For me that should mean Sajid Javid as PM and Gove as Chancellor.
Brexit will cut across all of those "offers". It's hard for those promoting disruption, trade barriers, ideology over economics to present themselves as safe pairs of hands on the economy. Secondly,the tax take will be reduced as companies offshore and fewer economic migrants come in, so less money to spend and difficult choices on how to cut and not boost welfare. Thirdly dealing with the with the disintegration that is the consequence of Brexit will be all consuming. It won't be consolidation.
We shall see. I think you are exaggerating any Brexit effects by at least an order of magnitude.
These are statements of fact, and should not be controversial. It's not "exaggeration". Leaving an integrated economic system inevitably creates trade barriers. Maybe it's justified for other reasons but you can hardly claim prioritization of the economy. Disintegration by definition is the consequence of no longer being integrated. Fewer taxable workers and less taxable business activity means less money to spend on welfare.
It's amazing how people confuse facts with their opinions or forecasts.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
The Conservatives are now the party of Brexit. They must own it, and accept that their membership will largely be Brexit supporters.
As a member I am a reluctant supporter of Brexit as I do not see any other way of respecting the vote
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
It's a smokescreen. The Withdrawal Agreement has almost nothing to do with the EU's position on the future relationship.
Of course it does. Quite apart from the political reality, which makes it inconceivable that we would pay anything without outline agreement on the future relationship, and the Irish border issue, which is impossible to even begin discussing without knowing what regulatory regimes the border is supposed to demarcate, there is the plain text of Article 50.
The plain text of Article 50 says that arrangements for withdrawal should take account of the framework for the future relationship. That framework based on Theresa May's red lines simply means outside the single market, customs union and jurisdiction of the EU's legal structures.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
The Conservatives are now the party of Brexit. They must own it, and accept that their membership will largely be Brexit supporters.
Of course, which is exactly why we don't want Kippers wanting to wreck it.
Is it right for people who voted Conservative at the last General Election to be denied membership?
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
Don't we keep hearing that parties have to be big tents to survive?
Above all economic competence (note this is on a comparative as opposed to absolute scale). The argument would be that we have fixed the deficit but we still have a debt mountain to address. Don't let Labour go mad yet again.
Potential problems are that we are now somewhat overdue a recession and there may be some short term disruption from Brexit (although I am betting the vast majority will not even notice). Labour may get their act together but that seems a more remote possibility.
Secondly, recognition of the need to prioritise the additional money then coming available. For me the priorities are Social Care, housing, the NHS, student debt, defence in roughly that order. I see no room at all for tax cuts but that does not mean that the burden cannot be switched about a bit by, for example, requiring pensioners to pay NI and a post mortem capital based tax to help to pay for Social Care.
Thirdly, consolidating the outcome of Brexit. What do we actually want to do with these newly acquired powers? So far Gove seems the only one who is even attempting to address that question. There is quite a lot of work to be done here. Also, once things have calmed down a bit, are there areas we would want to cooperate more closely with the EU?
The key to success will be credible leadership that ideally can reach groups beyond the party's usual support. For me that should mean Sajid Javid as PM and Gove as Chancellor.
Brexit will cut across all of those "offers". It's hard for those promoting disruption, trade barriers, ideology over economics to present themselves as safe pairs of hands on the economy. Secondly,the tax take will be reduced as companies offshore and fewer economic migrants come in, so less money to spend and difficult choices on how to cut and not boost welfare. Thirdly dealing with the with the disintegration that is the consequence of Brexit will be all consuming. It won't be consolidation.
We shall see. I think you are exaggerating any Brexit effects by at least an order of magnitude.
These are statements of fact, and should not be controversial. It's not "exaggeration". Leaving an integrated economic system inevitably creates trade barriers. Maybe it's justified for other reasons but you can hardly claim prioritization of the economy. Disintegration by definition is the consequence of no longer being integrated. Fewer taxable workers and less taxable business activity means less money to spend on welfare.
It's amazing how people confuse facts with their opinions or forecasts.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
Don't we keep hearing that parties have to be big tents to survive?
My point is that a very large percentage of small businesses would never have got going without that HPI creating capital that those entrepreneurs would not otherwise have had and that has spread wealth in this country.
That can be empirically tested : do countries with lower HPI have lower levels of new business formation
No idea but they may have a different savings culture than us to compensate. Our idea of a savings culture seems mainly to involve not hitting the credit card limit on more than 1 card in the average month.
What i have seen is that the UK has an exceptionally large number of micro businesses and new businesses compared with most European countries. I am pretty sure HPI plays a part in that but I don't have facts and figures.
Does the, apparently, exceptionally high number of self-employed account for the high 'employment level’? Thus a man may not have regular paid work but works on a casual basis (often cash-in-hand as, in the suburbs, a jobbing gardener. Rather like the self employed contractor to a delivery company, who, in a rational world would be an employee. Meanwhile the gardeners wife is a ‘casual' cleaner.
There is quite an interesting chart (figure 3) in there when one considers Mr Blanchflower's latest contributions. According to the survey there are now considerably more people over employed (ie would want to cut hours) than under employed.
Figure 4 shows that employment is increasing far more rapidly than self employment.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
There should be tight controls so as not to let the wrong sort of people in you say?
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
It's a smokescreen. The Withdrawal Agreement has almost nothing to do with the EU's position on the future relationship.
Of course it does. Quite apart from the political reality, which makes it inconceivable that we would pay anything without outline agreement on the future relationship, and the Irish border issue, which is impossible to even begin discussing without knowing what regulatory regimes the border is supposed to demarcate, there is the plain text of Article 50.
The plain text of Article 50 says that arrangements for withdrawal should take account of the framework for the future relationship. That framework based on Theresa May's red lines simply means outside the single market, customs union and jurisdiction of the EU's legal structures.
Fair enough, if that's the EU's position then they should agree an orderly transition to it, figure out for themselves what they want to do about the Irish border as a result of their position, figure out for themselves how they are going to deal with the security issues that that would create, put in place customs facilities at Calais and other ports, and figure out how they are going to plug their budget hole.
Since they don't appear to have even started thinking about any of these issues, let alone doing any preparatory work, my prediction is that they will be forced to accept something closely based on the only game in town, which (for all its faults and inconsistencies) is Chequers.
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
I think that the only rational conclusion that one can come to about the EU's positioning in what might laughingly be called negotiations is that they really didn't want us to leave and thought that if they made it too hard we would change our mind.
Of course they got and no doubt continue to get lots of encouragement from committed remainers in this country who were happy to sing the praises of the EU for doing nothing, no doubt very skillfully. What has not happened is any real engagement about what the relationship will be with their largest single export market after departure. It's really quite surreal.
There was a moment after one of May's speeches when they finally came to terms with the idea that we meant it but we have slipped back a long way since then.
TBH I think it's more that they've put their heads in the sand and haven't really got serious yet.
Well tick tock.
But I think you give them too much credit. They have not just had their heads in the sand, they have been positively obstructive.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
There should be tight controls so as not to let the wrong sort of people in you say?
I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should be let into a nightclub, but the same doesn't go for who I'd let into the country. Weird how that works, isn't it?
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
Leader of a Party goes around "Brexit means Brexit" "Red White and Blue Brexit."
Brexiteers apply to join party and are told "no we do not want any brexiteers."
Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize
You could not make that up
I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
There should be tight controls so as not to let the wrong sort of people in you say?
I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should be let into a nightclub, but the same doesn't go for who I'd let into the country. Weird how that works, isn't it?
Why don't you think under 18s should be let into to nightclubs?
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
What about never been UKIP members, are they welcome?
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
I think that the only rational conclusion that one can come to about the EU's positioning in what might laughingly be called negotiations is that they really didn't want us to leave and thought that if they made it too hard we would change our mind.
Of course they got and no doubt continue to get lots of encouragement from committed remainers in this country who were happy to sing the praises of the EU for doing nothing, no doubt very skillfully. What has not happened is any real engagement about what the relationship will be with their largest single export market after departure. It's really quite surreal.
There was a moment after one of May's speeches when they finally came to terms with the idea that we meant it but we have slipped back a long way since then.
TBH I think it's more that they've put their heads in the sand and haven't really got serious yet.
You are both right.
To do more properly the EU would have first needed to do some serious navel gazing about how it lost its 2nd biggest member in the first place rather than “it’s you, not me.”
Surely it must be every right thinking persons job to block Boris from becoming PM.
Depends on who the alternative is. In a Fox v Boris contest.....
(admittedly, that would require some very weird voting by the MPs!)
You know, my not-too-interested-in-politics-but-generally-a-good-judge-of-how-things-are-going-to-go cousin mentioned Fox as a serious candidate for next PM.
Makes me remember how all in the bubble we are....
Has they forgotten that Fox is a disgraced national security risk?
Not what you need when you’re trying to focus a general election campaign on Jeremy Corbyn being a risk to the safety of the country.
As opposed to a national security risk held in high esteem ?
Though thinking about it, that second bit rules out just about everyone.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
There should be tight controls so as not to let the wrong sort of people in you say?
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
It's a smokescreen. The Withdrawal Agreement has almost nothing to do with the EU's position on the future relationship.
Of course it does. Quite apart from the political reality, which makes it inconceivable that we would pay anything without outline agreement on the future relationship, and the Irish border issue, which is impossible to even begin discussing without knowing what regulatory regimes the border is supposed to demarcate, there is the plain text of Article 50.
The plain text of Article 50 says that arrangements for withdrawal should take account of the framework for the future relationship. That framework based on Theresa May's red lines simply means outside the single market, customs union and jurisdiction of the EU's legal structures.
Fair enough, if that's the EU's position then they should agree an orderly transition to it, figure out for themselves what they want to do about the Irish border as a result of their position, figure out for themselves how they are going to deal with the security issues that that would create, put in place customs facilities at Calais and other ports, and figure out how they are going to plug their budget hole.
Since they don't appear to have even started thinking about any of these issues, let alone doing any preparatory work, my prediction is that they will be forced to accept something closely based on the only game in town, which (for all its faults and inconsistencies) is Chequers.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
Leader of a Party goes around "Brexit means Brexit" "Red White and Blue Brexit."
Brexiteers apply to join party and are told "no we do not want any brexiteers."
Confusion reigns.
No confusion with Banks and Farage. They belong to UKIP
Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize
You could not make that up
I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.
Well there is also the Kissinger precedent - and they wouldn't even let him return it voluntarily.
Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize
You could not make that up
I assume they have no process for stripping an award given for past achievements, based on future behaviours. They wouldn’t have known that the person they honoured for peace would turn into a genocidal maniac.
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
There should be tight controls so as not to let the wrong sort of people in you say?
Lots of good headlines from Barnier, sterling rallies but haven’t seen the details.
Anything Barnier has actually said as nothing is being reported in the media, though I would expect that if it was positive the media would not report it as it does not fit their anti Brexit agenda
Lots of good headlines from Barnier, sterling rallies but haven’t seen the details.
Anything Barnier has actually said as nothing is being reported in the media, though I would expect that if it was positive the media would not report it as it does not fit their anti Brexit agenda
Anna Soubry appears to be calling for the Conservatives to strictly police potential members to keep the party to her taste... sounds like what she would consider a horrifically oppressive immigration policy
I dont agree with Anna too often but it is essential to ensure conservatives are joining and not Ukippers. They have their own party
Really? Aren't the two MP's who defected to UKIP now Conservatives? I would guess that a lot of UKIP members, or ex UKIP members, once belonged to the Conservative party. Are you saying they aren't welcome back?
If they are from the Farage wing absolutely not
Leader of a Party goes around "Brexit means Brexit" "Red White and Blue Brexit."
Brexiteers apply to join party and are told "no we do not want any brexiteers."
Confusion reigns.
No confusion with Banks and Farage. They belong to UKIP
I find it hard to reconcile your respect for May with your hate of Farage. She's consistently pandered to the UKIP demographic. The decision to call an election in 2017 was partially based on the assumption that kippers would "come home" to her.
Hard to argue with David Lidington on this, not least because Chequers is the only proposal anyone has made. That in turn is largely because the EU hasn't engaged. So, if they want to avoid chaos, and also if they want our dosh, what choice do they have but to agree something based on Chequers?
I think that the only rational conclusion that one can come to about the EU's positioning in what might laughingly be called negotiations is that they really didn't want us to leave and thought that if they made it too hard we would change our mind.
Of course they got and no doubt continue to get lots of encouragement from committed remainers in this country who were happy to sing the praises of the EU for doing nothing, no doubt very skillfully. What has not happened is any real engagement about what the relationship will be with their largest single export market after departure. It's really quite surreal.
There was a moment after one of May's speeches when they finally came to terms with the idea that we meant it but we have slipped back a long way since then.
TBH I think it's more that they've put their heads in the sand and haven't really got serious yet.
You are both right.
To do more properly the EU would have first needed to do some serious navel gazing about how it lost its 2nd biggest member in the first place rather than “it’s you, not me.”
Indeed the whole attitude has been one of thinking we've gone mad and that it was our responsibility to deal with everything as "you broke it, you fix it".
That fails to address why we felt the relationship sufficiently broke already to terminate it in the first place.
For as long as they think we have some form of 'British madness' of Eurocepticism rather than serious concerns they're going to struggle to face reality.
Comments
Bizarre isn’t it.
He has been around for a while and people (well, my cousin at least) have forgotten that he was forced to resign.
I’m actually told he’s quite popular amongst MPs, too.
Can’t see it myself, but if there is a contest I expect he’ll stand.
AIUI London prices are already starting to slowly fall, if they start falling say 5% per year then banks won’t be lending more than 75% LTV on anything. If they start falling 10% per year then banks won’t go higher than about 60%. There needs to be a period of adjustment, and it’s likely to be five years or so.
Mind, Tory thought processes are often a mystery to me.
Not all housing equity has been earnt through HPI (Pretty much 100% of mine is not through HPI - though I accept I may well be the exception that proves the rule)
Or, rather, I know why. It makes some of us feel “rich” while others are locked out of the market.
swaps with Marr
Looks as if the BBC have been too clever by half.
9.00am is the best time on a Sunday as it concludes early enough to get out and enjoy the day
Which may be true, but it seems to be part of a trend at the BBC to sacrifice most of the rest of their output to retain a shrinking share of the football market.
CricketGolf
Formula 1
Ten
nisEven more special was the way the BBC approached Sky, paving the way for the pay TV-only coverage of live races followed by (next year, I think) a full pay TV live season. Cracking value for the licence fee-payer there.
Still, the £30m that another contract would've cost was 'wisely' spent on the concept (NB not the show, just the concept) of The Voice. Which is also not on the BBC any more.
Edited extra bit: cheers, Mr. P.
Mr. L, very unfair. Who else will ask hard-hitting questions like "Will you keep your allotment?"
Sky and BT leave then standing. I would not even think of watching BBC for football
The inflation effect on debt is much more muted these days than when I first entered the property market 35 years ago but it is still significant and a relatively painless way for most people to build up savings which they would otherwise not achieve.
As a nation we have a chronically poor savings rate (as Robert points out this is why we have such a large trade deficit). If we didn't accumulate wealth in our housing we would on average be in truly desperate straits. It and pension contributions are the ways we, as a nation, save anything at all.
Outside the World Cup and Euros there isn't any football on BBC as far as I know?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/06/robert-peston-moves-to-midweek-itv-slot-after-poor-viewing-figures
What i have seen is that the UK has an exceptionally large number of micro businesses and new businesses compared with most European countries. I am pretty sure HPI plays a part in that but I don't have facts and figures.
For the first few years I owned my house I did all the usual stuff: loft, conservatory, kitchen, nice bathrooms etc and as prices were in the doldrums then the value of my house stayed unchanged for years. Which was fine by me as it was - and remains - my home. I still got equity because I was paying down the debt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/29/no-deal-brexit-is-only-alternative-to-chequers-plan-says-lidington
They are starting to make an impact on Sport.
One of my earliest memories was some poor sod having a heart attack and driving into the basement of the hotel, decapitating himself in the process.
Of course they got and no doubt continue to get lots of encouragement from committed remainers in this country who were happy to sing the praises of the EU for doing nothing, no doubt very skillfully. What has not happened is any real engagement about what the relationship will be with their largest single export market after departure. It's really quite surreal.
There was a moment after one of May's speeches when they finally came to terms with the idea that we meant it but we have slipped back a long way since then.
Yep. There's no such thing as a housing ladder, there's a housing pyramid. House prices only go up because demand from people at a lower level outstrips supply at your level. And at the bottom, it's all being driven on the backs people who can't afford to buy at all. The idea that it's a ladder than can lift everyone is exactly the same kind of deception used to sell pyramid schemes.
Meanwhile the gardeners wife is a ‘casual' cleaner.
The affordability rules are not ludicrous - and may well need looking at again. But people underestimate how much it really costs to own a home - it is not just the mortgage - and making people really work out what their outgoings are and what they can really afford is sensible. If that means that house prices come down, even quite significantly, then I will be cheering because it will make life much much easier for my children, even if it reduces my notional “wealth”.
Actually I only had a short period in the police as my Father who was retiring from the Prudential in Dalkeith decided to buy a business here in North Wales and all the family moved south with him and we ran the business.
However, I did not leave the police because of the job which I was really enjoying, but the opportunity at the time to run our own family business was key
Mind a teacher got £900 pa.
There is quite an interesting chart (figure 3) in there when one considers Mr Blanchflower's latest contributions. According to the survey there are now considerably more people over employed (ie would want to cut hours) than under employed.
Figure 4 shows that employment is increasing far more rapidly than self employment.
Since they don't appear to have even started thinking about any of these issues, let alone doing any preparatory work, my prediction is that they will be forced to accept something closely based on the only game in town, which (for all its faults and inconsistencies) is Chequers.
But I think you give them too much credit. They have not just had their heads in the sand, they have been positively obstructive.
You could not make that up
Brexiteers apply to join party and are told "no we do not want any brexiteers."
Confusion reigns.
To do more properly the EU would have first needed to do some serious navel gazing about how it lost its 2nd biggest member in the first place rather than “it’s you, not me.”
Though thinking about it, that second bit rules out just about everyone.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-markets/sterling-jumps-0-8-percent-vs-dollar-stocks-slip-on-barnier-remarks-idUKKCN1LE1RX
That fails to address why we felt the relationship sufficiently broke already to terminate it in the first place.
For as long as they think we have some form of 'British madness' of Eurocepticism rather than serious concerns they're going to struggle to face reality.