She was radicalized and groomed. To be spirited away from her home to be married and shagged underage. To be incorporated into a death cult. Had she joined a religious cult to be illegally married and impregnated, her rights would be clear. Instead she joined a fake state slaughtering all they could slaughter - but she was still radicalized groomed and married whilst still a child.
That she has lost her children is a tragedy but not something that is our doing - it's hers. As ye sow so shall ye reap. Nor do I think we should be spending cash or risking lives to extract her. But I do think she is a British citizen who has right and responsibilities. We seem to be trying to palm her off on a 3rd country she has no immediate connection to - is that the policy now, to try and force British suspected terrorists onto 3rd countries? Or do we take ownership of the situation and bring her to justice?
It is odd that we should show sensitivity to a 15 year old girl who joined a death cult because she was groomed when the two Bulger killers aged 10 who were from the most dysfunctional background imaginable got no understanding from anyone.
I wonder whether it's a sex thing-she's female they're male?
OT the Cheltenham weather forecast for the first two days features heavy rain and gales. If racing is called off we might have to watch Brexit instead. Sky currently has 7/4 soft and 10/1 heavy for the official going of the Supreme but dyor and remember sometimes the official going is wrong.
Brexit is undoubtedly heavy going, but I don't think it will be soft - it will either be hard or cancelled.
She was radicalized and groomed. To be spirited away from her home to be married and shagged underage. To be incorporated into a death cult. Had she joined a religious cult to be illegally married and impregnated, her rights would be clear. Instead she joined a fake state slaughtering all they could slaughter - but she was still radicalized groomed and married whilst still a child.
That she has lost her children is a tragedy but not something that is our doing - it's hers. As ye sow so shall ye reap. Nor do I think we should be spending cash or risking lives to extract her. But I do think she is a British citizen who has right and responsibilities. We seem to be trying to palm her off on a 3rd country she has no immediate connection to - is that the policy now, to try and force British suspected terrorists onto 3rd countries? Or do we take ownership of the situation and bring her to justice?
It is odd that we should show sensitivity to a 15 year old girl who joined a death cult because she was groomed when the two Bulger killers aged 10 who were from the most dysfunctional background imaginable got no understanding from anyone.
I wonder whether it's a sex thing-she's female they're male?
There’s a reluctance to believe that a woman could be so intrinsically evil. We want to excuse her behaviour, to believe that she was just the victim of manipulative older men.
On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"
She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?
Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.
If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim
Maybe you should speak out against this Roger,the local labour MP didn't.
That is a very interesting post. If you follow his religion what he is saying is unspectacular.. A jewish Rabbi could have stood on that platform and said exactly the same thing using almost identical words The only point of criticism is that he's saying it in public off a trailer. Most Imams and Rabbis and some Catholic branches will be saying the same week in and week out to their followers though not usually in a public place
This has been obvious since Hammond took over from Osborne. A weak, incompetent, minority government like this one meets every challenge with we are spending more. Once additional spending becomes the expected norm then arguing you are spending enough becomes perilous.
Some of this is not necessarily wrong. We have had the best part of 10 years of financial restraint since Brown's disaster and the deficit is now largely eliminated, albeit debt levels are more than double what they were pre-crash. It is inevitable that the pips are going to be squeaking in various parts of the public sector after such a period. What I think is less forgivable is that this government gives no sense of what its priorities are, what it is hoping to achieve with the additional money now available and why some public spending is good and some is not.
There was no 'financial restraint' from Cameron and Osborne when it came to buying votes or funding their pet projects from triple lock pensions to overseas aid to HTB, HS2 and HPC.
So how can you expect their successors to act differently.
On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"
She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?
Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.
If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim
Maybe you should speak out against this Roger,the local labour MP didn't.
That is a very interesting post. If you follow his religion what he is saying is unspectacular.. A jewish Rabbi could have stood on that platform and said exactly the same thing using almost identical words The only point of criticism is that he's saying it in public off a trailer. Most Imams and Rabbis and some Catholic branches will be saying the same week in and week out to their followers though not usually in a public place
On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"
She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?
Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.
If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim
Maybe you should speak out against this Roger,the local labour MP didn't.
That is a very interesting post. If you follow his religion what he is saying is unspectacular.. A jewish Rabbi could have stood on that platform and said exactly the same thing using almost identical words The only point of criticism is that he's saying it in public off a trailer. Most Imams and Rabbis and some Catholic branches will be saying the same week in and week out to their followers though not usually in a public place
A place of worship is a public place.
A fair point if a pedantic one. I should have said to an audience of his co religionists
On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"
She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?
Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.
If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim
Maybe you should speak out against this Roger,the local labour MP didn't.
That is a very interesting post. If you follow his religion what he is saying is unspectacular.. A jewish Rabbi could have stood on that platform and said exactly the same thing using almost identical words The only point of criticism is that he's saying it in public off a trailer. Most Imams and Rabbis and some Catholic branches will be saying the same week in and week out to their followers though not usually in a public place
On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"
She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?
Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.
If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim
While they love them in France - especially Muslims and Jews.
She was radicalized and groomed. To be spirited away from her home to be married and shagged underage. To be incorporated into a death cult. Had she joined a religious cult to be illegally married and impregnated, her rights would be clear. Instead she joined a fake state slaughtering all they could slaughter - but she was still radicalized groomed and married whilst still a child.
That she has lost her children is a tragedy but not something that is our doing - it's hers. As ye sow so shall ye reap. Nor do I think we should be spending cash or risking lives to extract her. But I do think she is a British citizen who has right and responsibilities. We seem to be trying to palm her off on a 3rd country she has no immediate connection to - is that the policy now, to try and force British suspected terrorists onto 3rd countries? Or do we take ownership of the situation and bring her to justice?
It is odd that we should show sensitivity to a 15 year old girl who joined a death cult because she was groomed when the two Bulger killers aged 10 who were from the most dysfunctional background imaginable got no understanding from anyone.
I wonder whether it's a sex thing-she's female they're male?
There’s a reluctance to believe that a woman could be so intrinsically evil. We want to excuse her behaviour, to believe that she was just the victim of manipulative older men.
Would Mary Bell be a better example, perhaps, if we're looking for a comparison?
Sad the level of debate on this. This daft bint went off to a third world hell hole and got knocked up - her decisions caused these outcomes entirely.
Also infant mortality in the third world is still high - yet the one bairn that causes the outrage is the celebrity baby. Shallow. Cry for them all or none - and do something about it - like mega wealthy capitalist Bill Gates has.
My own (somewhat mixed) views:
I have no sympathy with Begum's plight. True, she was a minor when she voluntarily left the UK, but her words (at least the ones I have heard) since she has resurfaced seem akin to: "Well, we tried, we lost. You must let me come back" - she doesn't seem to accept the horror she chose to become part of, or show any contrition.
(If someone can point me to an interview where she accepts the horrors of ISIS, I'd be grateful.)
I have -5k sympathy with her husband.
I have massive sympathy for the dead child. I'ts heartbreaking.
However: I also have massive sympathy with the other women and children who died because of the actions of the group she chose to join, and which her husband aided, directly or indirectly. They, not Begum, are the victims in this.
It's a hideous mess. But Begum placed herself, and her children, into danger.
Yet I also don't like her being made stateless.
As I said, mixed.
I think her age is relevant - we are rightly disgusted when adults groom underage girls to have sex with them, but seemingly indifferent when adults groom underage girls to accompany them when they fight for ISIS.
After all that's happened I'm not sure it's reasonable, or even relevant, to judge her by her current thoughts on ISIS, which have sounded thoroughly confused anyway. The issue should be what she's actually done (so far, AFAIK nobody has accused her of anything except being there) and what degree of influence she was under - not what her opinions are. Should the decision be different if she said she was terribly remorseful and planned to join the CoE and the Girl Scouts on returning?
TGOHF is of course right that there are millions of kids in desperate situations and we're focusing on one because it's easier to get our heads round it. But if we are talking about her, my vote on current evidence would be to let her back. The husband? No - if she wants to be with him, then Holland seems to be the natural place.
Gang members are also groomed (often sexually as well, I understand). We can recognise the fact without necessarily having much sympathy for their current actions and ideas. Whether we sympathise or not, what’s most important is breaking the cycle.
The children continue to bicker, their inexperience of the world obvious, but the MPs see it as a chance to enhance their careers, not enact the will of the people. We had a smile at the innocence of voters, but went on to discuss more important things..
What's the career upside to resisting brexit? I mean, if you're LibDem or SNP there's an upside because your base is heavily remainist and Chuka arguably does better but apart from that it feels like the career-enhancing move is mostly to keep your head down? The only mitigation being that if you're in government you'd rather the thing not be totally disastrous.
On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"
She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?
Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.
If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim
Maybe you should speak out against this Roger,the local labour MP didn't.
That is a very interesting post. If you follow his religion what he is saying is unspectacular.. A jewish Rabbi could have stood on that platform and said exactly the same thing using almost identical words The only point of criticism is that he's saying it in public off a trailer. Most Imams and Rabbis and some Catholic branches will be saying the same week in and week out to their followers though not usually in a public place
On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"
She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?
Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.
If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim
Maybe you should speak out against this Roger,the local labour MP didn't.
That is a very interesting post. If you follow his religion what he is saying is unspectacular.. A jewish Rabbi could have stood on that platform and said exactly the same thing using almost identical words The only point of criticism is that he's saying it in public off a trailer. Most Imams and Rabbis and some Catholic branches will be saying the same week in and week out to their followers though not usually in a public place
"The only point of criticism is that he's saying it in public off a trailer. "
The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?
Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?
Not alone - but mistaken - assuming L&C were regulated by the FCA/ PRU then it is obvious that they failed in their regulatory duties. To have form, the FCA should fine the PRU (and vice-versa) substantial amounts for failure to have adequate systems and controls to monitor L&C. The FSCS is there specifically as a 'backstop' should the FCA fail in their duty.
I am not suggesting that the FCA have not been incompetent. Of course they have. But the poor me moaning sticks in my throat.
Yes, I wonder how they rationalized it to themselves. The - entirely justified in my view - bank bashing might be a factor. If you're not good with numbers you might be able to believe that the banks could pay 8% if they weren't swindling us all, and so perhaps this is a plucky underdog outfit finally willing to deal straight with the public.
She was radicalized and groomed. To be spirited away from her home to be married and shagged underage. To be incorporated into a death cult. Had she joined a religious cult to be illegally married and impregnated, her rights would be clear. Instead she joined a fake state slaughtering all they could slaughter - but she was still radicalized groomed and married whilst still a child.
That she has lost her children is a tragedy but not something that is our doing - it's hers. As ye sow so shall ye reap. Nor do I think we should be spending cash or risking lives to extract her. But I do think she is a British citizen who has right and responsibilities. We seem to be trying to palm her off on a 3rd country she has no immediate connection to - is that the policy now, to try and force British suspected terrorists onto 3rd countries? Or do we take ownership of the situation and bring her to justice?
It is odd that we should show sensitivity to a 15 year old girl who joined a death cult because she was groomed when the two Bulger killers aged 10 who were from the most dysfunctional background imaginable got no understanding from anyone.
I wonder whether it's a sex thing-she's female they're male?
There’s a reluctance to believe that a woman could be so intrinsically evil. We want to excuse her behaviour, to believe that she was just the victim of manipulative older men.
Would Mary Bell be a better example, perhaps, if we're looking for a comparison?
Maybe. And when we finally do accept it the vitriol increases substantially. For instance Maxine Carr who had no involvement in the murder of the two young girls. Either before, during or after the attack. But in believing her boyfriends lies. Said he was with her when he wasn’t when questioned. For that she is seen as much a monster as he is. And if her new identity was ever revealed would probably be killed.
OT the Cheltenham weather forecast for the first two days features heavy rain and gales. If racing is called off we might have to watch Brexit instead. Sky currently has 7/4 soft and 10/1 heavy for the official going of the Supreme but dyor and remember sometimes the official going is wrong.
Brexit is undoubtedly heavy going, but I don't think it will be soft - it will either be hard or cancelled.
Do you think there will be many hurdles to a successful Brexit?
OT the Cheltenham weather forecast for the first two days features heavy rain and gales. If racing is called off we might have to watch Brexit instead. Sky currently has 7/4 soft and 10/1 heavy for the official going of the Supreme but dyor and remember sometimes the official going is wrong.
Brexit is undoubtedly heavy going, but I don't think it will be soft - it will either be hard or cancelled.
Do you think there will be many hurdles to a successful Brexit?
We're chasing unicorns, not steeples. And t certainly hasn't been a Triumph.
On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"
She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?
Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.
If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim
Maybe you should speak out against this Roger,the local labour MP didn't.
That is a very interesting post. If you follow his religion what he is saying is unspectacular.. A jewish Rabbi could have stood on that platform and said exactly the same thing using almost identical words The only point of criticism is that he's saying it in public off a trailer. Most Imams and Rabbis and some Catholic branches will be saying the same week in and week out to their followers though not usually in a public place
It’s only these Muslims who are higher up the pecking order of identity trump politics. I would suspect there is wider deep unease about the teaching of lgbt relationship and sex education to primary schools that goes further than Muslim groups. But no one has cover to collecvely push back against state intimidation.
Good for them. Teach the mechanics of it when they need it as a public health and pregnancy avoidance measure. Probably around 13 to 15. The rest is the responsibility of parents.
This has been obvious since Hammond took over from Osborne. A weak, incompetent, minority government like this one meets every challenge with we are spending more. Once additional spending becomes the expected norm then arguing you are spending enough becomes perilous.
Some of this is not necessarily wrong. We have had the best part of 10 years of financial restraint since Brown's disaster and the deficit is now largely eliminated, albeit debt levels are more than double what they were pre-crash. It is inevitable that the pips are going to be squeaking in various parts of the public sector after such a period. What I think is less forgivable is that this government gives no sense of what its priorities are, what it is hoping to achieve with the additional money now available and why some public spending is good and some is not.
There was no 'financial restraint' from Cameron and Osborne when it came to buying votes or funding their pet projects from triple lock pensions to overseas aid to HTB, HS2 and HPC.
So how can you expect their successors to act differently.
I didn't think that HMG had made noticeably austerity-busting investments in High Performance Computing. Is there something else that uses the same initials?
Edit: Ah, Hinkley Point C. I thought the beauty of that deal for the government is that it will be paid for by electricity consumers in the 2040s?
David's header is excellent, as so often. The Conservatives are effectively letting arguments in domestic policy go by default. I think that it mostly because of Brexit, but also partly because TM and Hammond in particular aren't really committed to free enterprise or personal liberty, so probably have at least some sympathy for Corbynite solutions.
The situation in this respect reminds me of descriptions of the eclipse of the Conservative cause during the Second World War, when the Party basically went into hibernation because its leaders were focused on the overwhelming national task. The central organisation was dormant, there were no party conferences or propaganda, and Labour treated the war as a heaven-sent opportunity to advance its cause. And Labour reaped the benefits in 1945, though a mainly Conservative government had stood up to Hitler and delivered victory.
Let's hope the same doesn't happen in 2022 or whenever. It probably won't, because Corbyn is certainly no Attlee, but you never know.
This has been obvious since Hammond took over from Osborne. A weak, incompetent, minority government like this one meets every challenge with we are spending more. Once additional spending becomes the expected norm then arguing you are spending enough becomes perilous.
Some of this is not necessarily wrong. We have had the best part of 10 years of financial restraint since Brown's disaster and the deficit is now largely eliminated, albeit debt levels are more than double what they were pre-crash. It is inevitable that the pips are going to be squeaking in various parts of the public sector after such a period. What I think is less forgivable is that this government gives no sense of what its priorities are, what it is hoping to achieve with the additional money now available and why some public spending is good and some is not.
There was no 'financial restraint' from Cameron and Osborne when it came to buying votes or funding their pet projects from triple lock pensions to overseas aid to HTB, HS2 and HPC.
So how can you expect their successors to act differently.
I didn't think that HMG had made noticeably austerity-busting investments in High Performance Computing. Is there something else that uses the same initials?
Edit: Ah, Hinkley Point C. I thought the beauty of that deal for the government is that it will be paid for by electricity consumers in the 2040s?
I rather suspect that Mr & Mrs Taxpayer will be making a sizeable contribution at some point.
I had an interesting meeting last week with the old gits I drink with. We meet up sporadically to put the world to rights but one of the group reminded us about the vote we'd taken about 18 months ago. Despite being evenly split on Brexit, we'd decided by five to one that Brexit would never really happen anyway.
Why? because the MPs didn't want it to happen and therefore it wouldn't. There might be a form of BINO where we'd continue to pay money, have no input into decisions, follow the rules and call it Brexit, but it wouldn't be Leave. We're all over sixty and naturally cynical so that probably explains it, but the sole dissenter then has now made it unanimous.
The children continue to bicker, their inexperience of the world obvious, but the MPs see it as a chance to enhance their careers, not enact the will of the people. We had a smile at the innocence of voters, but went on to discuss more important things.
The Remain voters among us were pleased, felt a mixture of guilt and relief, but accepted there would be understandable anger. It's a part of growing up - the realisation that the world isn't as you thought it was.. Democracy is fine, as long as it's controlled. Certain things are not allowed.
We tend to have amicable arguments only about politics. MPs lie, good politicians do it with an air of sincerity. That's life. Raging against the dying of the light assumes there was light to begin with.
The mistake was allowing 'old gits' to have a vote in the first place. It's the future we're talking about so leave the decision to those who it'll affect.
A future where our sovereignty is taken away from us and slowly replaced with a soviet style union with one president one currency one set of laws One army , one anthem , power in the hands of the unaccountable wealthy elite, ruling over the plebs who are too thick to understand the complicated issues of government , which benefits big business, the rich lining their pockets at the expense of the poor, rules and dictats coming down from the echelons of Brussels telling how we have to live our lives, what we can and can’t eat , what we can and cannot say, loss of freedom of speech, and law making body that doesn’t have the protections of the magna carta and habeus corpus, erosion of our hard won freedoms , in the interests of European Unity, it’s a failed project and ultimately will self destruct . Great future that Roger
I'm sure Roger would do very well out of it though...
Political and economic consensuses tend to have a shelf life of around roughly 30 to 40 years. The idea that an economic hegemony or political philosophy "wins" is for the birds. They do so only temporarily. A challenger emerges, often an old idea, slightly re packaged, And becomes dominant. A cursory look at history shows that. The Party which embraces change at this pivot point wins out, at least short term.
What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.
Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.
Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.
It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward
Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?
Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.
Never mind temporary , they should be swamping these places, rounding up the knife carriers and locking them up for a very long time. Stop the liberal snowflake whining about it being racist or not nice or whatever, just stop it. Police seem to have time to chase people when some halfwit phones up and says they have been offended by a comment on twitter. Get those that are left out on the streets nicking these halfwits.
Lots of Police personell do not like walking around town aimlessly with a big hat on anymore.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
I have not been posting too much as I am listening to less news and getting on with my life and family
The constant arguing and often bitterness is wearying and I see no immediate end in sight
However, next week will be interesting and I do believe TM's deal will fall due to ERG purity, no deal will be voted down and an extension requested. Seems the ERG are looking for a 21 month extension convinced that they will achieve a clean break, when in truth the longer the more likely is that no brexit is the final destination
The current domestic settlement has broken down. Labour gets that. What it doesn’t get is that with the far left in charge it will never have the chance to do anything about it.
What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.
Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.
Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.
It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward
Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?
Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.
Never mind temporary , they should be swamping these places, rounding up the knife carriers and locking them up for a very long time. Stop the liberal snowflake whining about it being racist or not nice or whatever, just stop it. Police seem to have time to chase people when some halfwit phones up and says they have been offended by a comment on twitter. Get those that are left out on the streets nicking these halfwits.
Lots of Police personell do not like walking around town aimlessly with a big hat on anymore.
No they'd rather drive around aimlessly in a comfortable, air-conditioned car.
What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.
Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.
Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.
It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward
Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?
Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.
Never mind temporary , they should be swamping these places, rounding up the knife carriers and locking them up for a very long time. Stop the liberal snowflake whining about it being racist or not nice or whatever, just stop it. Police seem to have time to chase people when some halfwit phones up and says they have been offended by a comment on twitter. Get those that are left out on the streets nicking these halfwits.
Lots of Police personell do not like walking around town aimlessly with a big hat on anymore.
If Corbyn gets in they'll all be wearing flat caps.
Political and economic consensuses tend to have a shelf life of around roughly 30 to 40 years. The idea that an economic hegemony or political philosophy "wins" is for the birds. They do so only temporarily. A challenger emerges, often an old idea, slightly re packaged, And becomes dominant. A cursory look at history shows that. The Party which embraces change at this pivot point wins out, at least short term.
PS, Meant to congratulate Mr Herdson on a fine header. Has the Edit function disappeared?
Political and economic consensuses tend to have a shelf life of around roughly 30 to 40 years. The idea that an economic hegemony or political philosophy "wins" is for the birds. They do so only temporarily. A challenger emerges, often an old idea, slightly re packaged, And becomes dominant. A cursory look at history shows that. The Party which embraces change at this pivot point wins out, at least short term.
The established order becomes complacent and corrupt and so becomes not fit for current purpose.
The bailed out banks and tax dodging globalised businesses are examples of this.
What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.
Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.
Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.
It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward
Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?
Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.
Never mind temporary , they should be swamping these places, rounding up the knife carriers and locking them up for a very long time. Stop the liberal snowflake whining about it being racist or not nice or whatever, just stop it. Police seem to have time to chase people when some halfwit phones up and says they have been offended by a comment on twitter. Get those that are left out on the streets nicking these halfwits.
Lots of Police personell do not like walking around town aimlessly with a big hat on anymore.
No they'd rather drive around aimlessly in a comfortable, air-conditioned car.
True , the walking around with a big hat on , is to reassure the public. As my control Sgt used to say "show the flag ". However was not seen as effective.
I had an interesting meeting last week with the old gits I drink with. We meet up sporadically to put the world to rights but one of the group reminded us about the vote we'd taken about 18 months ago. Despite being evenly split on Brexit, we'd decided by five to one that Brexit would never really happen anyway.
Why? because the MPs didn't want it to happen and therefore it wouldn't. There might be a form of BINO where we'd continue to pay money, have no input into decisions, follow the rules and call it Brexit, but it wouldn't be Leave. We're all over sixty and naturally cynical so that probably explains it, but the sole dissenter then has now made it unanimous.
The children continue to bicker, their inexperience of the world obvious, but the MPs see it as a chance to enhance their careers, not enact the will of the people. We had a smile at the innocence of voters, but went on to discuss more important things.
The Remain voters among us were pleased, felt a mixture of guilt and relief, but accepted there would be understandable anger. It's a part of growing up - the realisation that the world isn't as you thought it was.. Democracy is fine, as long as it's controlled. Certain things are not allowed.
We tend to have amicable arguments only about politics. MPs lie, good politicians do it with an air of sincerity. That's life. Raging against the dying of the light assumes there was light to begin with.
The mistake was allowing 'old gits' to have a vote in the first place. It's the future we're talking about so leave the decision to those who it'll affect.
A future where our sovereignty is taken away from us and slowly replaced with a soviet style union with one president one currency one set of laws One army , one anthem , power in the hands of the unaccountable wealthy elite, ruling over the plebs who are too thick to understand the complicated issues of government , which benefits big business, the rich lining their pockets at the expense of the poor, rules and dictats coming down from the echelons of Brussels telling how we have to live our lives, what we can and can’t eat , what we can and cannot say, loss of freedom of speech, and law making body that doesn’t have the protections of the magna carta and habeus corpus, erosion of our hard won freedoms , in the interests of European Unity, it’s a failed project and ultimately will self destruct . Great future that Roger
Most of these points are valid now in May`s pre-post-Brexit dictatorship. With the help of the Trump oppression.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
I have not been posting too much as I am listening to less news and getting on with my life and family
The constant arguing and often bitterness is wearying and I see no immediate end in sight
However, next week will be interesting and I do believe TM's deal will fall due to ERG purity, no deal will be voted down and an extension requested. Seems the ERG are looking for a 21 month extension convinced that they will achieve a clean break, when in truth the longer the more likely is that no brexit is the final destination
I suspect many in the ERG want 21 more months of generous speaking and appearance fees to drone on about the evils of Europe. If we ever left, their gravy train would be left to rust in the sidings.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
I have not been posting too much as I am listening to less news and getting on with my life and family
The constant arguing and often bitterness is wearying and I see no immediate end in sight
However, next week will be interesting and I do believe TM's deal will fall due to ERG purity, no deal will be voted down and an extension requested. Seems the ERG are looking for a 21 month extension convinced that they will achieve a clean break, when in truth the longer the more likely is that no brexit is the final destination
If indefinite tenancies were to be enacted, I would be compelled to give my tenant notice. Something I have been trying to avoid doing for three years, even at considerable personal cost.
The first effect would be a huge spike in homelessness. The second effect would be a slump in house prices, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The third would be a freezing of capital markets. Hmmm. That's two of three effects that are negative. And the fourth would be a huge rise in rents, unless that barely coherent lunatic Lloyd Russell-Moyle gets his way.
This would be a possible solution if we had a big council housing network. We don't. And if we had it, it wouldn't be necessary. A phrase about carts and horses springs to mind.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
Which would mean an increase in properties for sale thus boosting home ownership.
David's header is excellent, as so often. The Conservatives are effectively letting arguments in domestic policy go by default. I think that it mostly because of Brexit, but also partly because TM and Hammond in particular aren't really committed to free enterprise or personal liberty, so probably have at least some sympathy for Corbynite solutions.
The situation in this respect reminds me of descriptions of the eclipse of the Conservative cause during the Second World War, when the Party basically went into hibernation because its leaders were focused on the overwhelming national task. The central organisation was dormant, there were no party conferences or propaganda, and Labour treated the war as a heaven-sent opportunity to advance its cause. And Labour reaped the benefits in 1945, though a mainly Conservative government had stood up to Hitler and delivered victory.
Let's hope the same doesn't happen in 2022 or whenever. It probably won't, because Corbyn is certainly no Attlee, but you never know.
I think you’ll find it was many millions of ordinary men and women who stood up to Hitler and delivered victory.
Political and economic consensuses tend to have a shelf life of around roughly 30 to 40 years. The idea that an economic hegemony or political philosophy "wins" is for the birds. They do so only temporarily. A challenger emerges, often an old idea, slightly re packaged, And becomes dominant. A cursory look at history shows that. The Party which embraces change at this pivot point wins out, at least short term.
The established order becomes complacent and corrupt and so becomes not fit for current purpose.
The bailed out banks and tax dodging globalised businesses are examples of this.
Yes. See also privatisation of probation, jails, Carillion. Suspect schools to be next, short of funds while heads of academy chains pay themselves eye-watering sums.
On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?
My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...
It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"
She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).
Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.
If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?
Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?
Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.
If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim
Maybe you should speak out against this Roger,the local labour MP didn't.
That is a very interesting post. If you follow his religion what he is saying is unspectacular.. A jewish Rabbi could have stood on that platform and said exactly the same thing using almost identical words The only point of criticism is that he's saying it in public off a trailer. Most Imams and Rabbis and some Catholic branches will be saying the same week in and week out to their followers though not usually in a public place
David's header is excellent, as so often. The Conservatives are effectively letting arguments in domestic policy go by default. I think that it mostly because of Brexit, but also partly because TM and Hammond in particular aren't really committed to free enterprise or personal liberty, so probably have at least some sympathy for Corbynite solutions.
The situation in this respect reminds me of descriptions of the eclipse of the Conservative cause during the Second World War, when the Party basically went into hibernation because its leaders were focused on the overwhelming national task. The central organisation was dormant, there were no party conferences or propaganda, and Labour treated the war as a heaven-sent opportunity to advance its cause. And Labour reaped the benefits in 1945, though a mainly Conservative government had stood up to Hitler and delivered victory.
Let's hope the same doesn't happen in 2022 or whenever. It probably won't, because Corbyn is certainly no Attlee, but you never know.
I think you’ll find it was many millions of ordinary men and women who stood up to Hitler and delivered victory.
If memory serves, only 50% of Ministers in the wartime coalition were Tory. Of the other six, five were Labour and one was John Anderson, a neutral (technocratic, we would call him).
Political and economic consensuses tend to have a shelf life of around roughly 30 to 40 years. The idea that an economic hegemony or political philosophy "wins" is for the birds. They do so only temporarily. A challenger emerges, often an old idea, slightly re packaged, And becomes dominant. A cursory look at history shows that. The Party which embraces change at this pivot point wins out, at least short term.
The established order becomes complacent and corrupt and so becomes not fit for current purpose.
The bailed out banks and tax dodging globalised businesses are examples of this.
Yes. See also privatisation of probation, jails, Carillion. Suspect schools to be next, short of funds while heads of academy chains pay themselves eye-watering sums.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
Which would mean an increase in properties for sale thus boosting home ownership.
The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?
Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?
Reminds me of people investing in Icelandic Banks back in 08. I did not agree at the time with our government compensating them.
Her cringeworthy tears in parliament the other week were utterly pathetic. A child like level of understanding. Along with her claims “if I was prime minster for a day”. A child like understanding of what power is and how it is exercised.
Political and economic consensuses tend to have a shelf life of around roughly 30 to 40 years. The idea that an economic hegemony or political philosophy "wins" is for the birds. They do so only temporarily. A challenger emerges, often an old idea, slightly re packaged, And becomes dominant. A cursory look at history shows that. The Party which embraces change at this pivot point wins out, at least short term.
The established order becomes complacent and corrupt and so becomes not fit for current purpose.
The bailed out banks and tax dodging globalised businesses are examples of this.
Yes. See also privatisation of probation, jails, Carillion. Suspect schools to be next, short of funds while heads of academy chains pay themselves eye-watering sums.
Indeed.
The university boom is another.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a wave of strikes in schools over the next four months. There is a very very nasty nationwide financial catastrophe brewing for them. The government has said it will plug the gap for maintained schools for next year, but they may well have got their sums wrong. Redundancies and massive class sizes are another possibility.
The catch is that I expect it to bring a huge number of other very serious issues simmering away below the service around exam reform, workload, facilities, pay and conditions to the boil. The whole thing could unwind with catastrophic results. It is, for example, not out of the questions that no exams will be marked this summer.
Political and economic consensuses tend to have a shelf life of around roughly 30 to 40 years. The idea that an economic hegemony or political philosophy "wins" is for the birds. They do so only temporarily. A challenger emerges, often an old idea, slightly re packaged, And becomes dominant. A cursory look at history shows that. The Party which embraces change at this pivot point wins out, at least short term.
PS, Meant to congratulate Mr Herdson on a fine header. Has the Edit function disappeared?
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
I have not been posting too much as I am listening to less news and getting on with my life and family
The constant arguing and often bitterness is wearying and I see no immediate end in sight
However, next week will be interesting and I do believe TM's deal will fall due to ERG purity, no deal will be voted down and an extension requested. Seems the ERG are looking for a 21 month extension convinced that they will achieve a clean break, when in truth the longer the more likely is that no brexit is the final destination
If indefinite tenancies were to be enacted, I would be compelled to give my tenant notice. Something I have been trying to avoid doing for three years, even at considerable personal cost.
The first effect would be a huge spike in homelessness. The second effect would be a slump in house prices, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The third would be a freezing of capital markets. Hmmm. That's two of three effects that are negative. And the fourth would be a huge rise in rents, unless that barely coherent lunatic Lloyd Russell-Moyle gets his way.
This would be a possible solution if we had a big council housing network. We don't. And if we had it, it wouldn't be necessary. A phrase about carts and horses springs to mind.
Well, the Corbyn project is all about the radical reashaping of the economy, isn’t it ? A process which traditionally involves breaking it completely and reconstructing the pieces in a less functional form.
Mr. Jonathan, still recall with dismay her smirking laughter at the idea of discussing men's issues (like high suicide rates) in Parliament. Not impressed.
What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.
Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.
Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.
It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward
Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?
Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.
Never mind temporary , they should be swamping these places, rounding up the knife carriers and locking them up for a very long time. Stop the liberal snowflake whining about it being racist or not nice or whatever, just stop it. Police seem to have time to chase people when some halfwit phones up and says they have been offended by a comment on twitter. Get those that are left out on the streets nicking these halfwits.
Lots of Police personell do not like walking around town aimlessly with a big hat on anymore.
If Corbyn gets in they'll all be wearing flat caps.
If Abbott gets her way they will be history
“We are not interested in reforming … the police, armed services, judiciary and monarchy. We are about dismantling them and replacing them with our own machinery of class rule.”
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
Which would mean an increase in properties for sale thus boosting home ownership.
Only by a negligible amount. Osborne's tax changes means it's already cheaper to buy to live in tban buy to let.
Most renters do so because they are not in a position to buy. Either because they don't want to buy or can not afford to. Not because there's not enough homes on the market.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
Which would mean an increase in properties for sale thus boosting home ownership.
And would hurt Labour in the long run.
Is there a link to this indefinite tenancies policy? I thought they were looking at 3 year tenancies.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
I have not been posting too much as I am listening to less news and getting on with my life and family
The constant arguing and often bitterness is wearying and I see no immediate end in sight
However, next week will be interesting and I do believe TM's deal will fall due to ERG purity, no deal will be voted down and an extension requested. Seems the ERG are looking for a 21 month extension convinced that they will achieve a clean break, when in truth the longer the more likely is that no brexit is the final destination
If indefinite tenancies were to be enacted, I would be compelled to give my tenant notice. Something I have been trying to avoid doing for three years, even at considerable personal cost.
The first effect would be a huge spike in homelessness. The second effect would be a slump in house prices, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The third would be a freezing of capital markets. Hmmm. That's two of three effects that are negative. And the fourth would be a huge rise in rents, unless that barely coherent lunatic Lloyd Russell-Moyle gets his way.
This would be a possible solution if we had a big council housing network. We don't. And if we had it, it wouldn't be necessary. A phrase about carts and horses springs to mind.
There is a way it could work. But that would require a much simplified and easier eviction process to kick out tenants who don’t pay or breach their tenancy agreement.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
I have not been posting too much as I am listening to less news and getting on with my life and family
The constant arguing and often bitterness is wearying and I see no immediate end in sight
However, next week will be interesting and I do believe TM's deal will fall due to ERG purity, no deal will be voted down and an extension requested. Seems the ERG are looking for a 21 month extension convinced that they will achieve a clean break, when in truth the longer the more likely is that no brexit is the final destination
If indefinite tenancies were to be enacted, I would be compelled to give my tenant notice. Something I have been trying to avoid doing for three years, even at considerable personal cost.
The first effect would be a huge spike in homelessness. The second effect would be a slump in house prices, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The third would be a freezing of capital markets. Hmmm. That's two of three effects that are negative. And the fourth would be a huge rise in rents, unless that barely coherent lunatic Lloyd Russell-Moyle gets his way.
This would be a possible solution if we had a big council housing network. We don't. And if we had it, it wouldn't be necessary. A phrase about carts and horses springs to mind.
Well, the Corbyn project is all about the radical reashaping of the economy, isn’t it ? A process which traditionally involves breaking it completely and reconstructing the pieces in a less functional form
And which traditionally affects the poorest most severely. Which of course a bunch of Islington based posh boys with mortgage free houses worth seven figures don't know or care about.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
Which would mean an increase in properties for sale thus boosting home ownership.
Only by a negligible amount. Osborne's tax changes means it's already cheaper to buy to live in tban buy to let.
Most renters do so because they are not in a position to buy. Either because they don't want to buy or can not afford to. Not because there's not enough homes on the market.
Could it be that people cannot afford to buy due to being priced out by BTLers. It may be cheaper to buy but that doesn't mean people can get a large enough mortgage that allows them to buy said property.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
Which would mean an increase in properties for sale thus boosting home ownership.
And would hurt Labour in the long run.
Is there a link to this indefinite tenancies policy? I thought they were looking at 3 year tenancies.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
Which would mean an increase in properties for sale thus boosting home ownership.
Only by a negligible amount. Osborne's tax changes means it's already cheaper to buy to live in tban buy to let.
Most renters do so because they are not in a position to buy. Either because they don't want to buy or can not afford to. Not because there's not enough homes on the market.
Could it be that people cannot afford to buy due to being priced out by BTLers. It may be cheaper to buy but that doesn't mean people can get a large enough mortgage that allows them to buy said property.
I think it's the deposit, not the mortgage, in most cases. Again, without going into details my tenant would be financially better of with a mortgage of pretty much any size but can't get the deposit together. And I can't cut the rent far enough to make a meaningful difference (it would mean about three years rent free).
(By the way, I inherited this house with a sitting tenant and a maintenance backlog. If I sold it I could clear my mortgage. The rent is less than my mortgage payments even before tax and expenses. But I'm damned if I'm going to make somebody homeless to suit my own convenience.)
Along with John McDonnell, Theresa May is the most accomplished liar in British politics because, like him, she does it so easily, so frequently and with no discomfort whatsoever. It’s quite a thing.
Good piece, Mr Herdson. I guess where we differ is that I would see the end of the Thatcher Consensus as a Good Thing.
The mythical centre ground of public opinion is shifting leftwards. I believe that Ed Miliband should be credited for starting this movement, which is now continuing thanks to John McDonnell.
The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?
Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?
Reminds me of people investing in Icelandic Banks back in 08. I did not agree at the time with our government compensating them.
I've invested previously and received 12% PA on investments related to property. The key with high risk investments is to get in early when the bonus incentives are about, then be first out the door before the book starts turning bad.
Mr. B2, law and order's different now. Culturally sensitive to the point of turning a blind eye to claims of rape, and happy to ring up people who post poems on Twitter and haven't committed any sort of crime.
I feel I should be an old fashioned hang 'em and flog 'em type Tory, foursquare behind the rozzers. Hard to feel that way, though.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
Which would mean an increase in properties for sale thus boosting home ownership.
And would hurt Labour in the long run.
Is there a link to this indefinite tenancies policy? I thought they were looking at 3 year tenancies.
As a fellow accidental landlord, it looks like I will now have to sell before GE 2022. I do not want to be in a position where I am responsible for letting out a house for the rest of my life. I was looking at maybe another five to ten years max.
I suppose the details will be important: can a tenancy be terminated in order to sell the property? If not, then no wonder the Labour Party want out of the human rights of the EU. Right to enjoy property is one I believe.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
I have not been posting too much as I am listening to less news and getting on with my life and family
The constant arguing and often bitterness is wearying and I see no immediate end in sight
However, next week will be interesting and I do believe TM's deal will fall due to ERG purity, no deal will be voted down and an extension requested. Seems the ERG are looking for a 21 month extension convinced that they will achieve a clean break, when in truth the longer the more likely is that no brexit is the final destination
If indefinite tenancies were to be enacted, I would be compelled to give my tenant notice. Something I have been trying to avoid doing for three years, even at considerable personal cost.
The first effect would be a huge spike in homelessness. The second effect would be a slump in house prices, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The third would be a freezing of capital markets. Hmmm. That's two of three effects that are negative. And the fourth would be a huge rise in rents, unless that barely coherent lunatic Lloyd Russell-Moyle gets his way.
This would be a possible solution if we had a big council housing network. We don't. And if we had it, it wouldn't be necessary. A phrase about carts and horses springs to mind.
Well, the Corbyn project is all about the radical reashaping of the economy, isn’t it ? A process which traditionally involves breaking it completely and reconstructing the pieces in a less functional form
And which traditionally affects the poorest most severely. Which of course a bunch of Islington based posh boys with mortgage free houses worth seven figures don't know or care about.
Comrade Borough, the right to property will be maintained - for the state!
The proletariat do not get to enjoy such riches so why should the bourgeois middle classes?! Only the state is wise enough to enjoy unfettered wealth, which it shall then benevolently bestow upon those workers who meet their quotas, praise their leader, and submit to biannual re-education without complaint.
It is odd that we should show sensitivity to a 15 year old girl who joined a death cult because she was groomed when the two Bulger killers aged 10 who were from the most dysfunctional background imaginable got no understanding from anyone.
I wonder whether it's a sex thing-she's female they're male?
There were a few voices saying the 10-year-old killers needed extensive treatment, not prison - I remember a leading Norwegian commentator expressing incomprehension about the sentences. I'm not sure myself - I think you have the assess each case individually and try to assess the level of understanding of right and wrong, and it's difficult when we only read about them from our armchairs.
The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?
Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?
Reminds me of people investing in Icelandic Banks back in 08. I did not agree at the time with our government compensating them.
I agree with DavidL and I would probably include PPI and Endowments in that as well, but I think you are being harsh re the Icelandic Banks. At the time I was moving deposits around prior to buying a house so putting money on deposit in a number of banks and keeping my limit under the UK compensation threshold in each. They were under the same UK protection scheme as other banks, the rates were good, but not more than could be got elsewhere (I was in several UK banks at the same rate). So why would you treat them differently? The bank may have been reckless, but the people putting money on deposit weren't being so. You can't remove the protection retrospectively and if the Govt decides to increase the protection as the Govt did you can't pick and choose which ones if they were under the same UK protection scheme.
Mr. Roger, people tend to be happier condemning men than women for crime, and less willing to look for mitigating circumstances.
In fairness, men are more violent than women (the reason there's such a gender disparity in the prison population is mostly down to behaviour, although men do get treated somewhat more harshly by the justice system). However, the lack of forgiveness or interest in majority male issues is in stark contrast to issues that affect mostly women.
Take boardrooms. A tiny percentage of people ever get on a board, yet there's been far more in the media about the male majority there than there has been about the far larger male majority (circa 90%, i think) amongst the homeless. Or the male majority (about 75%) for suicides, although this (in terms of media coverage) is changing.
Labour to introduce indefinite tenancies which of course will end buy to let and devastate properties for rent, thereby increasing rents substantially. They do not have a clue
Which would mean an increase in properties for sale thus boosting home ownership.
And would hurt Labour in the long run.
Is there a link to this indefinite tenancies policy? I thought they were looking at 3 year tenancies.
As a fellow accidental landlord, it looks like I will now have to sell before GE 2022. I do not want to be in a position where I am responsible for letting out a house for the rest of my life. I was looking at maybe another five to ten years max.
I suppose the details will be important: can a tenancy be terminated in order to sell the property? If not, then no wonder the Labour Party want out of the human rights of the EU. Right to enjoy property is one I believe.
Scotland already has indefinite tenancies. So I guess that could be the model.
Good piece, Mr Herdson. I guess where we differ is that I would see the end of the Thatcher Consensus as a Good Thing.
The mythical centre ground of public opinion is shifting leftwards. I believe that Ed Miliband should be credited for starting this movement, which is now continuing thanks to John McDonnell.
I totally agree there - indeed I believe that public opinion was ready for a much more significant shift leftwards in 1997 but Blair was not willing to provide it.
Comments
I wonder whether it's a sex thing-she's female they're male?
And you feel a lot older still when she drops her request when you take your hat off.
So how can you expect their successors to act differently.
(according to the Oxford dictionary)
With a sign saying NO OUTSIDERS
There certainly aren't enough police, as the speaker should be under arrest for hate crimes.
And I said the same last year when some PBers speculated that it would political damage Sadiq Khan.
This explains why:
' Five victims have died in London, three in Birmingham, one in Manchester and one in Sunderland '
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/04/knife-victims-10-teenagers-killed-in-2019
What the Guardian shows but doesn't mention is that eight of the teenagers were also non-white and five had Islamic names.
To most people knife crime is something which happens among immigrant communities in the inner cities.
It is noticeable that it only got attention when the suburban girl and the private school boy became victims.
Unless there are more victims like that then attention will soon fade.
Good for them. Teach the mechanics of it when they need it as a public health and pregnancy avoidance measure. Probably around 13 to 15. The rest is the responsibility of parents.
Edit: Ah, Hinkley Point C. I thought the beauty of that deal for the government is that it will be paid for by electricity consumers in the 2040s?
So is Satan for or against leaving the EU?
I know he wasn't really Lucifer, but the figure is, er, somewhat similar.
Mr. Doethur, been a long time since I've seen it, so I couldn't comment either way. Tim Curry can be very entertaining, though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47504720
Unless its 'people like me' thirty second news reports are forgotten thirty minutes later.
However, incitement to violence, bullying and harassment is more serious.
There is an intimidatory atmosphere being whipped up -- & I am against intimidation whether from the mafia, or Fascists or fundamentalists.
The situation in this respect reminds me of descriptions of the eclipse of the Conservative cause during the Second World War, when the Party basically went into hibernation because its leaders were focused on the overwhelming national task. The central organisation was dormant, there were no party conferences or propaganda, and Labour treated the war as a heaven-sent opportunity to advance its cause. And Labour reaped the benefits in 1945, though a mainly Conservative government had stood up to Hitler and delivered victory.
Let's hope the same doesn't happen in 2022 or whenever. It probably won't, because Corbyn is certainly no Attlee, but you never know.
I remember seeing Legend just before Xmas 1985 in Leicester Square with my girlfriend and was rather taken with it.
A challenger emerges, often an old idea, slightly re packaged, And becomes dominant.
A cursory look at history shows that.
The Party which embraces change at this pivot point wins out, at least short term.
I have not been posting too much as I am listening to less news and getting on with my life and family
The constant arguing and often bitterness is wearying and I see no immediate end in sight
However, next week will be interesting and I do believe TM's deal will fall due to ERG purity, no deal will be voted down and an extension requested. Seems the ERG are looking for a 21 month extension convinced that they will achieve a clean break, when in truth the longer the more likely is that no brexit is the final destination
The bailed out banks and tax dodging globalised businesses are examples of this.
As my control Sgt used to say "show the flag ".
However was not seen as effective.
The first effect would be a huge spike in homelessness. The second effect would be a slump in house prices, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The third would be a freezing of capital markets. Hmmm. That's two of three effects that are negative. And the fourth would be a huge rise in rents, unless that barely coherent lunatic Lloyd Russell-Moyle gets his way.
This would be a possible solution if we had a big council housing network. We don't. And if we had it, it wouldn't be necessary. A phrase about carts and horses springs to mind.
The university boom is another.
I did not agree at the time with our government compensating them.
The catch is that I expect it to bring a huge number of other very serious issues simmering away below the service around exam reform, workload, facilities, pay and conditions to the boil. The whole thing could unwind with catastrophic results. It is, for example, not out of the questions that no exams will be marked this summer.
A process which traditionally involves breaking it completely and reconstructing the pieces in a less functional form.
“We are not interested in reforming … the police, armed services, judiciary and monarchy. We are about dismantling them and replacing them with our own machinery of class rule.”
(Though the rest is pretty rotten.)
Most renters do so because they are not in a position to buy. Either because they don't want to buy or can not afford to. Not because there's not enough homes on the market.
http://hurryupharry.org/2019/03/08/the-existential-threat-to-american-jews/
(By the way, I inherited this house with a sitting tenant and a maintenance backlog. If I sold it I could clear my mortgage. The rent is less than my mortgage payments even before tax and expenses. But I'm damned if I'm going to make somebody homeless to suit my own convenience.)
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1104058852931190784?s=21
The mythical centre ground of public opinion is shifting leftwards. I believe that Ed Miliband should be credited for starting this movement, which is now continuing thanks to John McDonnell.
https://twitter.com/WilliamClouston
SDP will contest Newport.
I feel I should be an old fashioned hang 'em and flog 'em type Tory, foursquare behind the rozzers. Hard to feel that way, though.
*sighs*
I suppose the details will be important: can a tenancy be terminated in order to sell the property? If not, then no wonder the Labour Party want out of the human rights of the EU. Right to enjoy property is one I believe.
The proletariat do not get to enjoy such riches so why should the bourgeois middle classes?! Only the state is wise enough to enjoy unfettered wealth, which it shall then benevolently bestow upon those workers who meet their quotas, praise their leader, and submit to biannual re-education without complaint.
In fairness, men are more violent than women (the reason there's such a gender disparity in the prison population is mostly down to behaviour, although men do get treated somewhat more harshly by the justice system). However, the lack of forgiveness or interest in majority male issues is in stark contrast to issues that affect mostly women.
Take boardrooms. A tiny percentage of people ever get on a board, yet there's been far more in the media about the male majority there than there has been about the far larger male majority (circa 90%, i think) amongst the homeless. Or the male majority (about 75%) for suicides, although this (in terms of media coverage) is changing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47440041
I have to say I quite like that one.
Details here:
https://blog.openrent.co.uk/scotland-axes-no-fault-evictions-new-tenancy-rules/
The landlord can evict if selling within three months.
Let's hope Labour adopt these rules.