If the new property taxes are on second properties (BTL and holiday homes) it will be hugely popular.
Not for those with second properties
Fuck 'em, Malc. If they can afford a second home they can afford to pay more tax.
I've sold mine now. Phew.
I was desperate to avoid the MaxPB wrath!
It's the only way to ensure the party survives in the long term. We need to bring the age of home ownership down to the early 30s or late 20s again.
Its already happening. Home ownership rates are going up and the age of first home ownership is going down.
But in the meantime people who are renting need somewhere to live. Good landlords and good tenants have a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitical one.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
Big picture, there is an army of people with inadequate pensions relying on downsizing their property (or selling their BTL) to sustain their retirement, and/or cover their care costs. And the population is ageing with fewer young families looking to move up to own larger properties. It is hard to see the house price escalation that we have seen over recent decades continuing in such circumstances.
If the new property taxes are on second properties (BTL and holiday homes) it will be hugely popular.
Except with those tenants who lose their homes as a result.
Does a house magically disappear when it's sold?
No, but a tenancy can. If you can’t afford to buy and no properties are being let out, where do you live?
Not really. The tenancy transfers. Is the government still committed to removing section 21 evictions?
Don’t know. But if there is a tax on second properties I will have to sell, and to sell at anything like the market rate I will have to evict my tenant.
Lol, a landlord trying to avoid the truth of being a parasite.
I inherited that house, from my mother, who inherited it from her father, who had lived in it until it was let to pay care costs. On both occasions there was a sitting tenant. I don’t make money from letting it. In fact, I do no more than break even in income terms. If I sold it, I could clear my mortgage and have a huge sum left over. I don’t, because I am not in the business of making people homeless. If she wants to stay, as long as I am not subsidising her she can. I am in fact expecting she will move out soon, but that’s because of her work changing location. I am not forcing her to do it.
You, on the other hand, from a position of total arrogance and even more total ignorance are saying that millions of people like her should be made homeless to satisfy your small minded prejudices. You really are not showing to good advantage and bluntly, you are coming across as a bit dim as well as a nasty piece of work.
But it is typical that you don’t care who suffers as long as you get to stroke your private hates and feel good. The word ‘parasite’ does seem to fit.
If the new property taxes are on second properties (BTL and holiday homes) it will be hugely popular.
Except with those tenants who lose their homes as a result.
They'll find somewhere else. This argument has been used time and again, but we lived for years without landlords owning 4.5m residential properties. Private landlords need to be absolutely rinsed for as much money as possible.
How many council houses did we have then?
Honestly, you are coming across as more clueless than Joe Rukin.
Maybe it’s a product of my generation, but I don’t really have an emotional attachment to “owning” my house. I thought I would prior to buying but in reality paying the mortgage is the same as paying rent, except if I want to move the process is likely to be stressful and convoluted.
Ownership is irrelevant so long as its high quality, affordable, and secure.
If the new property taxes are on second properties (BTL and holiday homes) it will be hugely popular.
Except with those tenants who lose their homes as a result.
They'll find somewhere else. This argument has been used time and again, but we lived for years without landlords owning 4.5m residential properties. Private landlords need to be absolutely rinsed for as much money as possible.
Where will they find if there's nowhere to rent?
We've never lived in a situation of 100% home ownership and never will.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
The whole point of a lot of those leasehold issues IS that they would have been better off owning the property outright (freehold), rather than long term renting via a leasehold...
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
Big picture, there is an army of people with inadequate pensions relying on downsizing their property (or selling their BTL) to sustain their retirement, and/or cover their care costs. And the population is ageing with fewer young families looking to move up to own larger properties. It is hard to see the house price escalation that we have seen over recent decades continuing in such circumstances.
But that does rely on the right properties in the right locations becoming available.
Personally, having rented for most of my life until about four years ago, I think we need more rental not less. But the question is who provides it. Private landlords? Housing associations? The government?
And incidentally by far my worst ever landlord was a government agency. Clueless bastards took a year to fix a window, failed to put a lock on the front door and then stole every penny of my deposit.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
The whole point of a lot of those leasehold issues IS that they would have been better off owning the property outright (freehold), rather than long term renting via a leasehold...
Not true anymore. Freehold estates have the same onerous maintenance charges and restrictive covenants, with even less rights than leaseholders.
It’s a storm brewing, especially considering the hundreds of thousands of new builds, which 99% have this model.
Warning, in the Nevada Caucus they are going to use again something similar to Iowa: https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226327618863001602 It's completely untested, there is no staff traning on it, and there is no backup plan if it fails. The potencial of a repeat of the Iowa disaster is very high.
I'm not risking it, I'm not going to place bets on Nevada.
Warning, in the Nevada Caucus they are going to use again something similar to Iowa: https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226327618863001602 It's completely untested, there is no staff traning on it, and there is no backup plan if it fails. The potencial of a repeat of the Iowa disaster is very high.
I'm not risking it, I'm not going to place bets on Nevada.
There were certainly many tools used in Iowa. Problem was that most of them were running the show.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
Big picture, there is an army of people with inadequate pensions relying on downsizing their property (or selling their BTL) to sustain their retirement, and/or cover their care costs. And the population is ageing with fewer young families looking to move up to own larger properties. It is hard to see the house price escalation that we have seen over recent decades continuing in such circumstances.
But that does rely on the right properties in the right locations becoming available.
Personally, having rented for most of my life until about four years ago, I think we need more rental not less. But the question is who provides it. Private landlords? Housing associations? The government?
And incidentally by far my worst ever landlord was a government agency. Clueless bastards took a year to fix a window, failed to put a lock on the front door and then stole every penny of my deposit.
We need both home ownership and rentals. The idea we can have all or nothing is absolutely insane ignorance.
And if we're going to have rentals then I believe private works. That means private landlords.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
The whole point of a lot of those leasehold issues IS that they would have been better off owning the property outright (freehold), rather than long term renting via a leasehold...
Not true anymore. Freehold estates have the same onerous maintenance charges and restrictive covenants, with even less rights than leaseholders.
It’s a storm brewing, especially considering the hundreds of thousands of new builds, which 99% have this model.
The point is that when renting you can AVOID all of that. You don’t have to worry about the health of a so called investment, and you can utilize the benefits of a free market easily.
Warning, in the Nevada Caucus they are going to use again something similar to Iowa: https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226327618863001602 It's completely untested, there is no staff traning on it, and there is no backup plan if it fails. The potencial of a repeat of the Iowa disaster is very high.
I'm not risking it, I'm not going to place bets on Nevada.
The Nevada Dems have all backed Trump for November. It's the only explanation.....
Maybe it’s a product of my generation, but I don’t really have an emotional attachment to “owning” my house. I thought I would prior to buying but in reality paying the mortgage is the same as paying rent, except if I want to move the process is likely to be stressful and convoluted.
Ownership is irrelevant so long as its high quality, affordable, and secure.
I think it may depend where you live. Up north prices doubled between 2001 and 2004 and have remained almost static ever since
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
Big picture, there is an army of people with inadequate pensions relying on downsizing their property (or selling their BTL) to sustain their retirement, and/or cover their care costs. And the population is ageing with fewer young families looking to move up to own larger properties. It is hard to see the house price escalation that we have seen over recent decades continuing in such circumstances.
Equity release is an answer, although I know one or two informed people who reckon that’s the next PPI.
Maybe it’s a product of my generation, but I don’t really have an emotional attachment to “owning” my house. I thought I would prior to buying but in reality paying the mortgage is the same as paying rent, except if I want to move the process is likely to be stressful and convoluted.
Ownership is irrelevant so long as its high quality, affordable, and secure.
Renting with security of tenure makes financial sense so long as rents are capped at modest yield and house prices do not inflate long term over CPI.
Warning, in the Nevada Caucus they are going to use again something similar to Iowa: https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226327618863001602 It's completely untested, there is no staff traning on it, and there is no backup plan if it fails. The potencial of a repeat of the Iowa disaster is very high.
I'm not risking it, I'm not going to place bets on Nevada.
They were going to use the same company that messed up in Iowa, but have now cancelled the contract.
Surely they're not silly enough to have have got another company to do it at short notice?
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
In the four and a half years I have lived in this house its nominal value has risen 25%.
Admittedly, by the standards of most areas it’s still a cheap house. But it’s got to the stage where if I wanted to buy it now, I couldn’t afford it solely out of liquid capital and income.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Completely agreed, but the solution is to ensure people are able to buy securely and keep their purchase as easily or healthily as possible.
It is not to ensure that those who can't buy have no alternatives.
What are the issues preventing people purchasing? Is it lack of homes, or lack of deposit, or something else? Find the problem and solve it - don't punish those letting out properly.
I could have told them for a fiver it will be too difficult and they will never do it anyway. We don't even have a motorway between or two biggest cities, WTF use is a bridge to NI when only a handful of people want to go there. Only benefits Ireland as they will be able to flood our inadequate road system with juggernauts. Spend the money on real infrastructure that Scotland needs rather than vanity shit.
In the unlikely event that it were built would you be prepared to call it the "Boris Bridge"?
You have to ask that, I would rather have several holes in the head.
Well, you already have your mouth, ears nose and eye sockets.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Completely agreed, but the solution is to ensure people are able to buy securely and keep their purchase as easily or healthily as possible.
It is not to ensure that those who can't buy have no alternatives.
What are the issues preventing people purchasing? Is it lack of homes, or lack of deposit, or something else? Find the problem and solve it - don't punish those letting out properly.
In my experience, it’s lack of deposit. And the reason for the lack of deposit is because rents are so high. They reason they are so high is that demand outstrips supply.
How that is resolved by throttling private rentals I don’t know. TBH a campaign to build social rented housing would seem the logical way forward, but nobody’s willing to pay for it.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Past performance is no guarantee of future performance though.
That also relies on 30 years of stability, with no breakdown of relationships, health, or employment prospects.
If you are forced to sell in a recession you’re f*cked.
Warning, in the Nevada Caucus they are going to use again something similar to Iowa: https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226327618863001602 It's completely untested, there is no staff traning on it, and there is no backup plan if it fails. The potencial of a repeat of the Iowa disaster is very high.
I'm not risking it, I'm not going to place bets on Nevada.
They were going to use the same company that messed up in Iowa, but have now cancelled the contract.
Surely they're not silly enough to have have got another company to do it at short notice?
They already have. They have no backup plans like phones or a fax, they only have an untested rushed app that no one knows how to use.
That's why I'm staying away from betting on Nevada.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Completely agreed, but the solution is to ensure people are able to buy securely and keep their purchase as easily or healthily as possible.
It is not to ensure that those who can't buy have no alternatives.
What are the issues preventing people purchasing? Is it lack of homes, or lack of deposit, or something else? Find the problem and solve it - don't punish those letting out properly.
In my experience, it’s lack of deposit. And the reason for the lack of deposit is because rents are so high. They reason they are so high is that demand outstrips supply.
How that is resolved by throttling private rentals I don’t know. TBH a campaign to build social rented housing would seem the logical way forward, but nobody’s willing to pay for it.
The answer is purpose built, private, medium density city centre housing for rental in my opinion. Economies of scale means that rents can be lower, it can be treated as a proper business with due regard for regulations, and it means that housing stock in the suburbs is freed up for families and what not.
Council planning departments need to incentivize this in my opinion.
On the subject of Nicola Sturgeon being aware of Alex Salmond's alleged misdeeds, there were two SNP supporters in the pub the other night discussing how widely known his behaviour was. I won't go into specifics as it wouldn't be good for the site. But if there is anything in it, and rank and file members are aware, it's nigh on impossible for every member of the senior leadership team not to have known.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
Big picture, there is an army of people with inadequate pensions relying on downsizing their property (or selling their BTL) to sustain their retirement, and/or cover their care costs. And the population is ageing with fewer young families looking to move up to own larger properties. It is hard to see the house price escalation that we have seen over recent decades continuing in such circumstances.
Equity release is an answer, although I know one or two informed people who reckon that’s the next PPI.
The way reverse mortgages are being marketed are definitely going to cause problems down the line, as the basic maths of compound interest mean that that round-the-world cruise or child's wedding end up costing almost the whole value of the house in 30 or 40 years' time.
Guilt-tripping can only every get you so far - and it is not far enough.
I currently drive a petrol fuelled car. I would like to go fully electric but the two things which are holding me back are (1) the poor range - I use my car for long journeys; and (2) the relative lack of fast charging points. Plus the purchase cost is still too high.
Car companies are, I hope, working on the first. Governments should be investing in the latter. That is one bit of infrastructure spending which is surely needed and should be started pdq, if we want to be serious about caring for the environment.
Ditto with gas boilers: the government should be making it cost effective for householders to change over. They’re doing nothing. So yes we can turn our heating down, put on vests etc but a financial incentive would really help - much as it did for solar panels on houses.
It's getting better. I have an electric car with between 200 and 300 miles range depending on temperature and charging on long journeys doesnt take much longer than the time to buy and drink a coffee.
And the renewable heat initiative gives you payments over up to 20 years. I'm converting to a ground source heat pump and there is a positive return over time without considering the environmental benefits. The problem is the up front cost for which some form of loan scheme would help to get lots of people doing it.
My UK made hybrid Toyota has a range of 575 miles and I get range anxiety when it drops below 200. Also there's the cost of charging away from home which is not that much less than with a car that does 60 mpg.
I'm currently on a big 60mpg diesel estate, which I expect to be my last non-electric car. I need to wait for them to be able to tow 2 tons.
On charging points, I had mine put in with all the neighbours when they were doing them free 3-4 years ago.
Now you get a 75% grant if you have an eligible electric car.
I understand there are still significant torque issues for towing with electric cars.
Tesla Model X has 920lb ft of torque and 2,500kg towing capacity.
Off the top of my head it probably has the most torque of any production car you can buy in the UK.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Completely agreed, but the solution is to ensure people are able to buy securely and keep their purchase as easily or healthily as possible.
It is not to ensure that those who can't buy have no alternatives.
What are the issues preventing people purchasing? Is it lack of homes, or lack of deposit, or something else? Find the problem and solve it - don't punish those letting out properly.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Past performance is no guarantee of future performance though.
That also relies on 30 years of stability, with no breakdown of relationships, health, or employment prospects.
If you are forced to sell in a recession you’re f*cked.
There are no guarantees, and one has to take the best shot. Buying is the best shot.
Guilt-tripping can only every get you so far - and it is not far enough.
I currently drive a petrol fuelled car. I would like to go fully electric but the two things which are holding me back are (1) the poor range - I use my car for long journeys; and (2) the relative lack of fast charging points. Plus the purchase cost is still too high.
Car companies are, I hope, working on the first. Governments should be investing in the latter. That is one bit of infrastructure spending which is surely needed and should be started pdq, if we want to be serious about caring for the environment.
Ditto with gas boilers: the government should be making it cost effective for householders to change over. They’re doing nothing. So yes we can turn our heating down, put on vests etc but a financial incentive would really help - much as it did for solar panels on houses.
It's getting better. I have an electric car with between 200 and 300 miles range depending on temperature and charging on long journeys doesnt take much longer than the time to buy and drink a coffee.
And the renewable heat initiative gives you payments over up to 20 years. I'm converting to a ground source heat pump and there is a positive return over time without considering the environmental benefits. The problem is the up front cost for which some form of loan scheme would help to get lots of people doing it.
My UK made hybrid Toyota has a range of 575 miles and I get range anxiety when it drops below 200. Also there's the cost of charging away from home which is not that much less than with a car that does 60 mpg.
I'm currently on a big 60mpg diesel estate, which I expect to be my last non-electric car. I need to wait for them to be able to tow 2 tons.
On charging points, I had mine put in with all the neighbours when they were doing them free 3-4 years ago.
Now you get a 75% grant if you have an eligible electric car.
I understand there are still significant torque issues for towing with electric cars.
Tesla Model X has 920lb ft of torque and 2,500kg towing capacity.
Off the top of my head it probably has the most torque of any production car you can buy in the UK.
It's a range issue rather than a torque issue IMO. Any car has its economy cut in half when towing a big trailer, it's just that with the electric car that's more of a problem due to charging times.
Yes, the top end electric cars have ridiculous amounts of torque from a standstill, the P100D Model S and X can run 11s for the standing quarter!
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
Big picture, there is an army of people with inadequate pensions relying on downsizing their property (or selling their BTL) to sustain their retirement, and/or cover their care costs. And the population is ageing with fewer young families looking to move up to own larger properties. It is hard to see the house price escalation that we have seen over recent decades continuing in such circumstances.
Equity release is an answer, although I know one or two informed people who reckon that’s the next PPI.
The way reverse mortgages are being marketed are definitely going to cause problems down the line, as the basic maths of compound interest mean that that round-the-world cruise or child's wedding end up costing almost the whole value of the house in 30 or 40 years' time.
I don’t understand why people don’t appreciate the effects of compound interest.
Type 31 Frigate delayed by four years. Defence spending is definitely going on the back burner so the government can plant palm trees on roundabouts in Spennymoor.
So if, say, a large Eurasian country decides to invade a small Central European country that's a member of NATO, we'll have to ask them to wait for a decade whilst we buy stuff and people to stop them.
Yup, nothing wrong there. Entirely understandable. Not even slightly sinister. No, siree.
(punches wall in frustration)
I am of the opinion that NATO probably would not fight Russia for the Baltics so in that sense the current tory disarmament campaign is irrelevant. Trump definitely wouldn't.
Even if they eventually get built the T31s have been significantly downgraded in weapons and systems. The latest money saving wheeze is to repackage old Sea Wolf launchers from the T23s as they are decommissioned into VLS tubes. Nothing can possibly go wrong with that plan but the bright spark that dreamt it up will have been commended for saving money and promoted by the time the full scale of the inevitable fiasco becomes apparent.
Even if the T23 refit programs and the T31/T26 construction programs had gone exactly to schedule the RN was going to be down to 16 escort vessels by 2030. Nothing ever goes to schedule.
"whether charities, pension funds, or Oxbridge colleges"
Unless there are a few exceptions I haven't encountered, Oxford and Cambridge colleges are charities. I was surprised to learn that St John's College, Oxford, isn't a registered one though, unlike its namesake at Cambridge.
Who are the beneficiaries of Oxford and Cambridge colleges supposed to be? Is the answer "the public"? Is it that their investment activities and sale of educational services are supposed to raise money so that they can carry out charitable activities unrelated to these two income-bringing sets of activities, in the way that Oxfam sells secondhand clothes to raise money to assist victims of famine? (Presumably selling services to their own members isn't construed as a public good - that wouldn't make sense.) A friend tells me "the furtherance of religion" is usally written into the mission statements charters.
I think the Colleges have a lot of freedom to interpret their statutes, written a long time ago.
The Fellows can agree to give themselves 30,000 pounds each. In fact, they sometimes have done.
The Bursar at New College described it -- in an inspired phrase -- as "the jam on the college scone".
I don't know about Oxford but my experience at a number of Cambridge colleges is they spend a lot of money on pissups.
One of the reasons I always enjoyed conferences at Oxbridge was the excellence of their liquor stocks. Plus, I usually got free accommodation and a travel grant.
It does however also mean I can also remember comparatively little of what was actually discussed.
Mr. Meeks, sounds draconian. You'll be advocating flight limits and second home bans next.
What's so funny is that Mr. Meeks is the same poster in the past who's argued for lifting of restrictions on immigration in the past for economic and demographic reasons and argued that there's no natural limit to the size of the population in the UK.
It’s almost as though if the bigger problem were addressed, the smaller problem would be solved almost automatically.
Who do you think is having too many children who you'd like to see have less?
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
Big picture, there is an army of people with inadequate pensions relying on downsizing their property (or selling their BTL) to sustain their retirement, and/or cover their care costs. And the population is ageing with fewer young families looking to move up to own larger properties. It is hard to see the house price escalation that we have seen over recent decades continuing in such circumstances.
Equity release is an answer, although I know one or two informed people who reckon that’s the next PPI.
The way reverse mortgages are being marketed are definitely going to cause problems down the line, as the basic maths of compound interest mean that that round-the-world cruise or child's wedding end up costing almost the whole value of the house in 30 or 40 years' time.
I don’t understand why people don’t appreciate the effects of compound interest.
Because it's hard to, when for your entire adult life they've been down at under 1% (base rate, at least). Which is the case for my generation and all below it.
"whether charities, pension funds, or Oxbridge colleges"
Unless there are a few exceptions I haven't encountered, Oxford and Cambridge colleges are charities. I was surprised to learn that St John's College, Oxford, isn't a registered one though, unlike its namesake at Cambridge.
Who are the beneficiaries of Oxford and Cambridge colleges supposed to be? Is the answer "the public"? Is it that their investment activities and sale of educational services are supposed to raise money so that they can carry out charitable activities unrelated to these two income-bringing sets of activities, in the way that Oxfam sells secondhand clothes to raise money to assist victims of famine? (Presumably selling services to their own members isn't construed as a public good - that wouldn't make sense.) A friend tells me "the furtherance of religion" is usally written into the mission statements charters.
I think the Colleges have a lot of freedom to interpret their statutes, written a long time ago.
The Fellows can agree to give themselves 30,000 pounds each. In fact, they sometimes have done.
The Bursar at New College described it -- in an inspired phrase -- as "the jam on the college scone".
I don't know about Oxford but my experience at a number of Cambridge colleges is they spend a lot of money on pissups.
There's a reason why Cambride colleges spend a lot on piss ups.
A genius Cambridge grad has found a link between the money colleges spend on booze and the number of firsts their students achieve.
Churchill grad Grayden Reece-Smith has made a chart that appears to show a relationship between the amount of wine supplied by colleges and academic performance.
Students have widely accepted that this chart is the best excuse for bad behaviour since telling your mum you only read Playboy for the articles.
Speaking to The Tab, Land Economy grad Grayden said he decided to make the chart after reading about college spending on wine.
“I noticed that the colleges with the highest wine budgets were traditionally those that were also high in the Tompkins Table. I knew there would be a correlation before I made the chart.”
Those concerned about their environmental impact might start by having fewer children.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fossil fuel dependency is basically just a (solvable) technology and organizational problem. Any intelligent human can help solve it. If the average human can do more to help solve it than they consume, more humans will be a net positive.
Exactly.
Today is one of the most nihilistic and misanthropic threads I've read.
There is a tendency amongst people, and occasionally prevalent on this board, to believe that if only other people would cease to exist or stop doing things the world would be so much better. It's kinda annoying.
We can forget any solution to climate change based on people volunteering to eat vegetables for the rest of their days, never fly anywhere and never to have children, the most natural human instinct of all.
The solution has to be technological, and a more sophisticated and advanced economy that allows sustainability, and to maintain existing living standards, or it won't stick or be accepted.
That means sustainable meat raising (there's a good argument we need to eat more grass fed ruminant meat, not less) and diversified and balanced fishing, it means developing poor countries so their economies don't require large families (with the human population naturally levelling out) and it means electric/renewable based aviation.
Then we can have a happy future we can all look forward to. Not one that makes me want to slit my wrists just thinking about it.
Indeed.
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Guilt-tripping can only every get you so far - and it is not far enough.
I currentl Car companies are, I hope, working on the first. Governments should be investing in the latter. That is one bit of infrastructure spending which is surely needed and should be started pdq, if we want to be serious about caring for the environment.
Ditto with gas boilers: the government should be making it cost effective for householders to change over. They’re doing nothing. So yes we can turn our heating down, put on vests etc but a financial incentive would really help - much as it did for solar panels on houses.
It's getting better. I have an electric car with between 200 and 300 miles range depending on temperature and charging on long journeys doesnt take much longer than the time to buy and drink a coffee.
And the renewable heat initiative gives you payments over up to 20 years. I'm converting to a ground source heat pump and there is a positive return over time without considering the environmental benefits. The problem is the up front cost for which some form of loan scheme would help to get lots of people doing it.
My UK made hybrid Toyota has a range of 575 miles and I get range anxiety when it drops below 200. Also there's the cost of charging away from home which is not that much less than with a car that does 60 mpg.
I'm currently on a big 60mpg diesel estate, which I expect to be my last non-electric car. I need to wait for them to be able to tow 2 tons.
On charging points, I had mine put in with all the neighbours when they were doing them free 3-4 years ago.
Now you get a 75% grant if you have an eligible electric car.
I understand there are still significant torque issues for towing with electric cars.
Tesla Model X has 920lb ft of torque and 2,500kg towing capacity.
Off the top of my head it probably has the most torque of any production car you can buy in the UK.
It's a range issue rather than a torque issue IMO. Any car has its economy cut in half when towing a big trailer, it's just that with the electric car that's more of a problem due to charging times.
Yes, the top end electric cars have ridiculous amounts of torque from a standstill, the P100D Model S and X can run 11s for the standing quarter!
Yes, my brother visited me last Xmas in his brand new Tesla, and we spent much of Boxing Day fiddling about with his charging Ap and going back and forth to the trickle charging a mile or so away, so that he had enough charge to get back home. This year he came in his son's second hand car as using the Tesla was too much hassle.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
Big picture, there is an army of people with inadequate pensions relying on downsizing their property (or selling their BTL) to sustain their retirement, and/or cover their care costs. And the population is ageing with fewer young families looking to move up to own larger properties. It is hard to see the house price escalation that we have seen over recent decades continuing in such circumstances.
Equity release is an answer, although I know one or two informed people who reckon that’s the next PPI.
The way reverse mortgages are being marketed are definitely going to cause problems down the line, as the basic maths of compound interest mean that that round-the-world cruise or child's wedding end up costing almost the whole value of the house in 30 or 40 years' time.
I don’t understand why people don’t appreciate the effects of compound interest.
I think the lenders do! The loan only has an attractive interest rate, e.g. ~3%/y, if it's limited to 20-25% of the house value. If you want to borrow more, you may pay 5-6%/y, to offset the risk to them of the no negative equity guarantee. The fact that so many insurers have got into ER, to obtain higher rates on their funds, makes me think that house prices won't be allowed to fall.
Those concerned about their environmental impact might start by having fewer children.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fossil fuel dependency is basically just a (solvable) technology and organizational problem. Any intelligent human can help solve it. If the average human can do more to help solve it than they consume, more humans will be a net positive.
Exactly.
Today is one of the most nihilistic and misanthropic threads I've read.
There is a tendency amongst people, and occasionally prevalent on this board, to believe that if only other people would cease to exist or stop doing things the world would be so much better. It's kinda annoying.
We can forget any solution to climate change based on people volunteering to eat vegetables for the rest of their days, never fly anywhere and never to have children, the most natural human instinct of all.
The solution has to be technological, and a more sophisticated and advanced economy that allows sustainability, and to maintain existing living standards, or it won't stick or be accepted.
That means sustainable meat raising (there's a good argument we need to eat more grass fed ruminant meat, not less) and diversified and balanced fishing, it means developing poor countries so their economies don't require large families (with the human population naturally levelling out) and it means electric/renewable based aviation.
Then we can have a happy future we can all look forward to. Not one that makes me want to slit my wrists just thinking about it.
Indeed.
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Not really. Robots aren't taking the sort of human jobs that necessitate flying - pretty much by definition, since the main reason to attend something is person is that the human relationship aspect is important, which is difficult to get via videoconferencing etc. And it's precisely those relationship-driven roles that is hard for robots to take over.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Completely agreed, but the solution is to ensure people are able to buy securely and keep their purchase as easily or healthily as possible.
It is not to ensure that those who can't buy have no alternatives.
What are the issues preventing people purchasing? Is it lack of homes, or lack of deposit, or something else? Find the problem and solve it - don't punish those letting out properly.
In my experience, it’s lack of deposit. And the reason for the lack of deposit is because rents are so high. They reason they are so high is that demand outstrips supply.
How that is resolved by throttling private rentals I don’t know. TBH a campaign to build social rented housing would seem the logical way forward, but nobody’s willing to pay for it.
In my experience deposit is the biggest issue but the problem is not rents, the problem is that people spend what they have available thus putting off saving for the deposit. Having fewer takeaways, drinks or other discretionary expenses will allow saving more but if people think they have £x available they have a tendency to spend £x whether it is in their best interests or not.
Those concerned about their environmental impact might start by having fewer children.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fossil fuel dependency is basically just a (solvable) technology and organizational problem. Any intelligent human can help solve it. If the average human can do more to help solve it than they consume, more humans will be a net positive.
Exactly.
Today is one of the most nihilistic and misanthropic threads I've read.
There is a tendency amongst people, and occasionally prevalent on this board, to believe that if only other people would cease to exist or stop doing things the world would be so much better. It's kinda annoying.
We can forget any solution to climate change based on people volunteering to eat vegetables for the rest of their days, never fly anywhere and never to have children, the most natural human instinct of all.
Then we can have a happy future we can all look forward to. Not one that makes me want to slit my wrists just thinking about it.
Indeed.
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Not really. Robots aren't taking the sort of human jobs that necessitate flying - pretty much by definition, since the main reason to attend something is person is that the human relationship aspect is important, which is difficult to get via videoconferencing etc. And it's precisely those relationship-driven roles that is hard for robots to take over.
Oh I think videoconferencing is fine for that, long haul business trips are just a jolly- the people that do them have to make out they are important to keep going on them.
I meant robots doing the jobs that humans do, or used to, would mean fewer humans working and therefore more leisure time, so they wouldnt need to partake in the ridiculously unnatural and damaging act of flying in a plane.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Completely agreed, but the solution is to ensure people are able to buy securely and keep their purchase as easily or healthily as possible.
It is not to ensure that those who can't buy have no alternatives.
What are the issues preventing people purchasing? Is it lack of homes, or lack of deposit, or something else? Find the problem and solve it - don't punish those letting out properly.
In my experience, it’s lack of deposit. And the reason for the lack of deposit is because rents are so high. They reason they are so high is that demand outstrips supply.
How that is resolved by throttling private rentals I don’t know. TBH a campaign to build social rented housing would seem the logical way forward, but nobody’s willing to pay for it.
In my experience deposit is the biggest issue but the problem is not rents, the problem is that people spend what they have available thus putting off saving for the deposit. Having fewer takeaways, drinks or other discretionary expenses will allow saving more but if people think they have £x available they have a tendency to spend £x whether it is in their best interests or not.
When I was last renting, my rent took around half my monthly net income.
On top of that, council tax. Then food. Then utility bills. Then the car.
On the most optimistic assumptions, I had around £400 a month left spare.
On that basis, assuming the same amount put away every month, and no emergencies requiring an injection of cash (e.g. a replacement car) plus big ticket one off items like car insurance (which I pay annually as it’s cheaper) I would be gaining around £3000 a year.
So that would be around nine years to save up for a deposit once legal fees are factored in. And that’s round here.
It’s something of a struggle unless you’re in a very well paid job.
Mr. Meeks, sounds draconian. You'll be advocating flight limits and second home bans next.
What's so funny is that Mr. Meeks is the same poster in the past who's argued for lifting of restrictions on immigration in the past for economic and demographic reasons and argued that there's no natural limit to the size of the population in the UK.
It’s almost as though if the bigger problem were addressed, the smaller problem would be solved almost automatically.
Who do you think is having too many children who you'd like to see have less?
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Not really. Robots aren't taking the sort of human jobs that necessitate flying - pretty much by definition, since the main reason to attend something is person is that the human relationship aspect is important, which is difficult to get via videoconferencing etc. And it's precisely those relationship-driven roles that is hard for robots to take over.
Oh I think videoconferencing is fine for that, long haul business trips are just a jolly- the people that do them have to make out they are important to keep going on them.
I meant robots doing the jobs that humans do, or used to, would mean fewer humans working and therefore more leisure time, so they wouldnt need to partake in the ridiculously unnatural and damaging act of flying in a plane.
Oh, I see. In that case I disagree even more so - what on earth do you think humans are going to want to do with all that increased leisure time? Take more holidays, is my guess. Which means more flying. And cruises, which I think are even worse. It certainly does not mean a pickup in sailboats.
I'm guessing you don't do much long haul business trips? I don't know anyone who does who describes them as "jolly" - travel is exhausting and having to work during, and stay sharp for a long series of meetings straight after is not much fun. Unfortunately, their are times when it's unavoidable, like when you're trying to manage a series of independently-minded branches out of a central regional hub.
Type 31 Frigate delayed by four years. Defence spending is definitely going on the back burner so the government can plant palm trees on roundabouts in Spennymoor.
So if, say, a large Eurasian country decides to invade a small Central European country that's a member of NATO, we'll have to ask them to wait for a decade whilst we buy stuff and people to stop them.
Yup, nothing wrong there. Entirely understandable. Not even slightly sinister. No, siree.
(punches wall in frustration)
I am of the opinion that NATO probably would not fight Russia for the Baltics so in that sense the current tory disarmament campaign is irrelevant. Trump definitely wouldn't.
Even if they eventually get built the T31s have been significantly downgraded in weapons and systems. The latest money saving wheeze is to repackage old Sea Wolf launchers from the T23s as they are decommissioned into VLS tubes. Nothing can possibly go wrong with that plan but the bright spark that dreamt it up will have been commended for saving money and promoted by the time the full scale of the inevitable fiasco becomes apparent.
Even if the T23 refit programs and the T31/T26 construction programs had gone exactly to schedule the RN was going to be down to 16 escort vessels by 2030. Nothing ever goes to schedule.
If true - and it very well might be - that's quite sad because it'll be the end of NATO...
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Not really. Robots aren't taking the sort of human jobs that necessitate flying - pretty much by definition, since the main reason to attend something is person is that the human relationship aspect is important, which is difficult to get via videoconferencing etc. And it's precisely those relationship-driven roles that is hard for robots to take over.
Oh I think videoconferencing is fine for that, long haul business trips are just a jolly- the people that do them have to make out they are important to keep going on them.
I meant robots doing the jobs that humans do, or used to, would mean fewer humans working and therefore more leisure time, so they wouldnt need to partake in the ridiculously unnatural and damaging act of flying in a plane.
Oh, I see. In that case I disagree even more so - what on earth do you think humans are going to want to do with all that increased leisure time? Take more holidays, is my guess. Which means more flying. And cruises, which I think are even worse. It certainly does not mean a pickup in sailboats.
I'm guessing you don't do much long haul business trips? I don't know anyone who does who describes them as "jolly" - travel is exhausting and having to work during, and stay sharp for a long series of meetings straight after is not much fun. Unfortunately, their are times when it's unavoidable, like when you're trying to manage a series of independently-minded branches out of a central regional hub.
Disagreement is allowed
If humans cared about the earth they would make fewer flights, and if they had more time on their hands, maybe they would. Travel is exhausting as you say, but it needn't be. Humans are trying to make the world move at an unnatural pace in my opinion, and it is the major reason for unhappiness, as well as climate change.
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Not really. Robots aren't taking the sort of human jobs that necessitate flying - pretty much by definition, since the main reason to attend something is person is that the human relationship aspect is important, which is difficult to get via videoconferencing etc. And it's precisely those relationship-driven roles that is hard for robots to take over.
Oh I think videoconferencing is fine for that, long haul business trips are just a jolly- the people that do them have to make out they are important to keep going on them.
I meant robots doing the jobs that humans do, or used to, would mean fewer humans working and therefore more leisure time, so they wouldnt need to partake in the ridiculously unnatural and damaging act of flying in a plane.
Oh, I see. In that case I disagree even more so - what on earth do you think humans are going to want to do with all that increased leisure time? Take more holidays, is my guess. Which means more flying. And cruises, which I think are even worse. It certainly does not mean a pickup in sailboats.
I'm guessing you don't do much long haul business trips? I don't know anyone who does who describes them as "jolly" - travel is exhausting and having to work during, and stay sharp for a long series of meetings straight after is not much fun. Unfortunately, their are times when it's unavoidable, like when you're trying to manage a series of independently-minded branches out of a central regional hub.
When I was in Malta on holiday recently I noticed the cruise ships in Valletta had to keep at least some of their engines running even in harbour. Once I thought it over, this was of course logical. But it’s still a highly inefficient and polluting way of operating the functions aboard ship.
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Not really. Robots aren't taking the sort of human jobs that necessitate flying - pretty much by definition, since the main reason to attend something is person is that the human relationship aspect is important, which is difficult to get via videoconferencing etc. And it's precisely those relationship-driven roles that is hard for robots to take over.
Oh I think videoconferencing is fine for that, long haul business trips are just a jolly- the people that do them have to make out they are important to keep going on them.
I meant robots doing the jobs that humans do, or used to, would mean fewer humans working and therefore more leisure time, so they wouldnt need to partake in the ridiculously unnatural and damaging act of flying in a plane.
Oh, I see. In that case I disagree even more so - what on earth do you think humans are going to want to do with all that increased leisure time? Take more holidays, is my guess. Which means more flying. And cruises, which I think are even worse. It certainly does not mean a pickup in sailboats.
I'm guessing you don't do much long haul business trips? I don't know anyone who does who describes them as "jolly" - travel is exhausting and having to work during, and stay sharp for a long series of meetings straight after is not much fun. Unfortunately, their are times when it's unavoidable, like when you're trying to manage a series of independently-minded branches out of a central regional hub.
Disagreement is allowed
If humans cared about the earth they would make fewer flights, and if they had more time on their hands, maybe they would. Travel is exhausting as you say, but it needn't be. Humans are trying to make the world move at an unnatural pace in my opinion, and it is the major reason for unhappiness, as well as climate change.
If I had the time and they put coaches on it, I would love to travel London to Yiwu. That would be some journey.
Those concerned about their environmental impact might start by having fewer children.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fossil fuel dependency is basically just a (solvable) technology and organizational problem. Any intelligent human can help solve it. If the average human can do more to help solve it than they consume, more humans will be a net positive.
Exactly.
Today is one of the most nihilistic and misanthropic threads I've read.
There is a tendency amongst people, and occasionally prevalent on this board, to believe that if only other people would cease to exist or stop doing things the world would be so much better. It's kinda annoying.
We can forget any solution to climate change based on people volunteering to eat vegetables for the rest of their days, never fly anywhere and never to have children, the most natural human instinct of all.
The solution has to be technological, and a more sophisticated and advanced economy that allows sustainability, and to maintain existing living standards, or it won't stick or be accepted.
That means sustainable meat raising (there's a good argument we need to eat more grass fed ruminant meat, not less) and diversified and balanced fishing, it means developing poor countries so their economies don't require large families (with the human population naturally levelling out) and it means electric/renewable based aviation.
Then we can have a happy future we can all look forward to. Not one that makes me want to slit my wrists just thinking about it.
Indeed.
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Coronavirus is going to test the need to fly to meetings.
"We'd like to come over from Hubei to meet with - "
Those concerned about their environmental impact might start by having fewer children.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fossil fuel dependency is basically just a (solvable) technology and organizational problem. Any intelligent human can help solve it. If the average human can do more to help solve it than they consume, more humans will be a net positive.
Exactly.
Today is one of the most nihilistic and misanthropic threads I've read.
There is a tendency amongst people, and occasionally prevalent on this board, to believe that if only other people would cease to exist or stop doing things the world would be so much better. It's kinda annoying.
We can forget any solution to climate change based on people volunteering to eat vegetables for the rest of their days, never fly anywhere and never to have children, the most natural human instinct of all.
The solution has to be technological, and a more sophisticated and advanced economy that allows sustainability, and to maintain existing living standards, or it won't stick or be accepted.
That means sustainable meat raising (there's a good argument we need to eat more grass fed ruminant meat, not less) and diversified and balanced fishing, it means developing poor countries so their economies don't require large families (with the human population naturally levelling out) and it means electric/renewable based aviation.
Then we can have a happy future we can all look forward to. Not one that makes me want to slit my wrists just thinking about it.
Indeed.
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Coronavirus is going to test the need to fly to meetings.
"We'd like to come over from Hubei to meet with - "
"Oh, I'm sure we can conference call..."
Yeah, globalisation has a lot to answer for in my opinion. It speeds everything up, the bad things along with the good
I’ve got some of those world’s smallest violins for sale.
They say judge a man by his friends....it seems none of the staff at the Palace of Westminster have anything good to say about him, it is just the likes of Jezza and Dawn Butler who are willing to stick up for him.
It's a range issue rather than a torque issue IMO. Any car has its economy cut in half when towing a big trailer, it's just that with the electric car that's more of a problem due to charging times.
Yes, the top end electric cars have ridiculous amounts of torque from a standstill, the P100D Model S and X can run 11s for the standing quarter!
A 20 year old ZX9R can do it in 10 secs. Yeah, I know, apples & oranges, but still...
As I said earlier today - it's a shame Brexit allows him to claim it's a conspiracy rather than forcing him to admit it's his behaviour and bullying that is the reason.
As I said earlier today - it's a shame Brexit allows him to claim it's a conspiracy rather than forcing him to admit it's his behaviour and bullying that is the reason.
Is anybody buying that now so many staffers are coming out of the woodwork to tell their stories?
I’ve got some of those world’s smallest violins for sale.
They say judge a man by his friends....it seems none of the staff at the Palace of Westminster have anything good to say about him, it is just the likes of Jezza and Dawn Butler who are willing to stick up for him.
I read an interview with JB in The Times magazine last week. Quite amazing, the tale of Sally Bercow's affair and his attitude to it all. I'd hazard a guess that his uptight and argumentative way in the HofC stems from his repressed feelings about that
As I said earlier today - it's a shame Brexit allows him to claim it's a conspiracy rather than forcing him to admit it's his behaviour and bullying that is the reason.
Whatever the reason, the more bitter and twisted he gets about the snub the better.
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Not really. Robots aren't taking the sort of human jobs that necessitate flying - pretty much by definition, since the main reason to attend something is person is that the human relationship aspect is important, which is difficult to get via videoconferencing etc. And it's precisely those relationship-driven roles that is hard for robots to take over.
Oh I think videoconferencing is fine for that, long haul business trips are just a jolly- the people that do them have to make out they are important to keep going on them.
I meant robots doing the jobs that humans do, or used to, would mean fewer humans working and therefore more leisure time, so they wouldnt need to partake in the ridiculously unnatural and damaging act of flying in a plane.
Oh, I see. In that case I disagree even more so - what on earth do you think humans are going to want to do with all that increased leisure time? Take more holidays, is my guess. Which means more flying. And cruises, which I think are even worse. It certainly does not mean a pickup in sailboats.
I'm guessing you don't do much long haul business trips? I don't know anyone who does who describes them as "jolly" - travel is exhausting and having to work during, and stay sharp for a long series of meetings straight after is not much fun. Unfortunately, their are times when it's unavoidable, like when you're trying to manage a series of independently-minded branches out of a central regional hub.
Disagreement is allowed
If humans cared about the earth they would make fewer flights, and if they had more time on their hands, maybe they would. Travel is exhausting as you say, but it needn't be. Humans are trying to make the world move at an unnatural pace in my opinion, and it is the major reason for unhappiness, as well as climate change.
If I had the time and they put coaches on it, I would love to travel London to Yiwu. That would be some journey.
Those concerned about their environmental impact might start by having fewer children.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fossil fuel dependency is basically just a (solvable) technology and organizational problem. Any intelligent human can help solve it. If the average human can do more to help solve it than they consume, more humans will be a net positive.
Exactly.
Today is one of the most nihilistic and misanthropic threads I've read.
There is a tendency amongst people, and occasionally prevalent on this board, to believe that if only other people would cease to exist or stop doing things the world would be so much better. It's kinda annoying.
We can forget any solution to climate change based on people volunteering to eat vegetables for the rest of their days, never fly anywhere and never to have children, the most natural human instinct of all.
The solution has to be technological, and a more sophisticated and advanced economy that allows sustainability, and to maintain existing living standards, or it won't stick or be accepted.
That means sustainable meat raising (there's a good argument we need to eat more grass fed ruminant meat, not less) and diversified and balanced fishing, it means developing poor countries so their economies don't require large families (with the human population naturally levelling out) and it means electric/renewable based aviation.
Then we can have a happy future we can all look forward to. Not one that makes me want to slit my wrists just thinking about it.
Indeed.
I don't really see why we have to fly. There must be a case for arguing that technological developments, robots taking human jobs for instance, would give the human race more time on its hands and so make it less necessary to travel places in a hurry.
Coronavirus is going to test the need to fly to meetings.
"We'd like to come over from Hubei to meet with - "
"Oh, I'm sure we can conference call..."
Yeah, globalisation has a lot to answer for in my opinion. It speeds everything up, the bad things along with the good
"There is more to life than increasing its speed." - Mahatma Gandhi.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
Nominal house prices have risen or remained flat(ish) every year since the 1970's except for 1992/3 and 2008/9. A few years later they recovered.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order ofentingealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Completely agreed, but the solution is to ensure people are able to buy securely and keep their purchase as easily or healthily as possible.
It is not to ensure that those who can't buy have no alternatives.
What are the issues preventing people purchasing? Is it lack of homes, or lack of deposit, or something else? Find the problem and solve it - don't punish those letting out properly.
In my experience, it’s lack of deposit. And the reason for the lack of deposit is because rents are so high. They reason they are so high is that demand outstrips supply.
How that is resolved by throttling private rentals I don’t know. TBH a campaign to build social rented housing would seem the logical way forward, but nobody’s willing to pay for it.
In my experience deposit is the biggest issue but the problem is not rents, the problem is that people spend what they have available thus putting off saving for the deposit. Having fewer takeaways, drinks or other discretionary expenses will allow saving more but if people think they have £x available they have a tendency to spend £x whether it is in their best interests or not.
And modern living facilities and almost feels it’s needed to participate in this kind of thing. It is extraordinary how much people will spend on coffee, sandwiches and general entertainment. When I was younger the idea that you would buy a sandwich and a drink was madness. You get the bread, pop, crisps and fillings from Food Giant. Make them yourself and take them with you. But the experience isn’t the food it’s the socialising that’s comes from the food and the environment around you. So people do the same thing but buy it in a costas or similar.
The differences of opinion I have with my other half when she leaves the house and goes to a drive through costa on the way to work when we have fantastic fresh coffee maker at home. We are comfortable (no rich) enough that we don’t really have to think hard about these things but, I came from a (relatively) very difficult upbringing and she went to private school.
It's a range issue rather than a torque issue IMO. Any car has its economy cut in half when towing a big trailer, it's just that with the electric car that's more of a problem due to charging times.
Yes, the top end electric cars have ridiculous amounts of torque from a standstill, the P100D Model S and X can run 11s for the standing quarter!
A 20 year old ZX9R can do it in 10 secs. Yeah, I know, apples & oranges, but still...
Anybody who can press a button can do it in the Tesla. People who can cut a 10s 1320 feet on a bike and live to tell about it are few and far between.
If the new property taxes are on second properties (BTL and holiday homes) it will be hugely popular.
Except with those tenants who lose their homes as a result.
Does a house magically disappear when it's sold?
No, but a tenancy can. If you can’t afford to buy and no properties are being let out, where do you live?
Not really. The tenancy transfers. Is the government still committed to removing section 21 evictions?
Don’t know. But if there is a tax on second properties I will have to sell, and to sell at anything like the market rate I will have to evict my tenant.
Same for me, I rent my flat to a retired couple, I have not raised rent since they rented it years ago, I fix everything for them instantly etc. I only keep it to give to my grandchildren , I have a mortgage on it ( was previously my home ) and don't make much if anything from it.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
The whole point of a lot of those leasehold issues IS that they would have been better off owning the property outright (freehold), rather than long term renting via a leasehold...
Not true anymore. Freehold estates have the same onerous maintenance charges and restrictive covenants, with even less rights than leaseholders.
It’s a storm brewing, especially considering the hundreds of thousands of new builds, which 99% have this model.
You should move to God's country, all freehold and maintenance of all the playparks , grass etc on our estate is peanuts, ie less than £30 a quarter. They do a great job as well.
I would be perfectly happy to sell my house and rent high quality accommodation from a professional landlord company indefinitely to be honest.
It is something I am seriously considering.
Don't. It's a stunningly bad financial decision. If you have a lot of money and are in the latter stages of your life then it makes sense, but otherwise no: renting instead of buying is a money bonfire. If you need to be away from your house for a prolonged period of time then rent out your house or get one or two lodgers in.
That’s only true if you believe house prices will remain static or rise. There’s no guarantee of that.
You see all those stories of people buying flats and houses they cannot sell due to cladding or leasehold issues. They would have been better off renting.
The whole point of a lot of those leasehold issues IS that they would have been better off owning the property outright (freehold), rather than long term renting via a leasehold...
Not true anymore. Freehold estates have the same onerous maintenance charges and restrictive covenants, with even less rights than leaseholders.
It’s a storm brewing, especially considering the hundreds of thousands of new builds, which 99% have this model.
They are not freehold estates, they are leasehold estates the government have committed to ban
Comments
But in the meantime people who are renting need somewhere to live. Good landlords and good tenants have a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitical one.
You, on the other hand, from a position of total arrogance and even more total ignorance are saying that millions of people like her should be made homeless to satisfy your small minded prejudices. You really are not showing to good advantage and bluntly, you are coming across as a bit dim as well as a nasty piece of work.
But it is typical that you don’t care who suffers as long as you get to stroke your private hates and feel good. The word ‘parasite’ does seem to fit.
Honestly, you are coming across as more clueless than Joe Rukin.
Ownership is irrelevant so long as its high quality, affordable, and secure.
We've never lived in a situation of 100% home ownership and never will.
Personally, having rented for most of my life until about four years ago, I think we need more rental not less. But the question is who provides it. Private landlords? Housing associations? The government?
And incidentally by far my worst ever landlord was a government agency. Clueless bastards took a year to fix a window, failed to put a lock on the front door and then stole every penny of my deposit.
It’s a storm brewing, especially considering the hundreds of thousands of new builds, which 99% have this model.
https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226327618863001602
It's completely untested, there is no staff traning on it, and there is no backup plan if it fails.
The potencial of a repeat of the Iowa disaster is very high.
I'm not risking it, I'm not going to place bets on Nevada.
And if we're going to have rentals then I believe private works. That means private landlords.
Down south that isn't the case.
People don't really get by how much they have gone up. My dad bought a terraced house in a poor area in his twenties: fifty years later he's still in it and it's gone up by well over an order of magnitude. The student house I was renting a back bedroom in in my youth is now six-seven times more expensive. The flat I bought about ten years ago will now get 40% more at market. The best indicator of wealth at retirement is the age at which you bought a house, and renting is running up a down escalator that just gets faster and faster. If you want to die poor: rent.
Surely they're not silly enough to have have got another company to do it at short notice?
Admittedly, by the standards of most areas it’s still a cheap house. But it’s got to the stage where if I wanted to buy it now, I couldn’t afford it solely out of liquid capital and income.
It is not to ensure that those who can't buy have no alternatives.
What are the issues preventing people purchasing? Is it lack of homes, or lack of deposit, or something else? Find the problem and solve it - don't punish those letting out properly.
How that is resolved by throttling private rentals I don’t know. TBH a campaign to build social rented housing would seem the logical way forward, but nobody’s willing to pay for it.
That also relies on 30 years of stability, with no breakdown of relationships, health, or employment prospects.
If you are forced to sell in a recession you’re f*cked.
They have no backup plans like phones or a fax, they only have an untested rushed app that no one knows how to use.
That's why I'm staying away from betting on Nevada.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sir-keir-starmer-mother-in-law-a4357481.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-row-explodes-party-21461000
Council planning departments need to incentivize this in my opinion.
Off the top of my head it probably has the most torque of any production car you can buy in the UK.
Yes, the top end electric cars have ridiculous amounts of torque from a standstill, the P100D Model S and X can run 11s for the standing quarter!
Even if they eventually get built the T31s have been significantly downgraded in weapons and systems. The latest money saving wheeze is to repackage old Sea Wolf launchers from the T23s as they are decommissioned into VLS tubes. Nothing can possibly go wrong with that plan but the bright spark that dreamt it up will have been commended for saving money and promoted by the time the full scale of the inevitable fiasco becomes apparent.
Even if the T23 refit programs and the T31/T26 construction programs had gone exactly to schedule the RN was going to be down to 16 escort vessels by 2030. Nothing ever goes to schedule.
It does however also mean I can also remember comparatively little of what was actually discussed.
A genius Cambridge grad has found a link between the money colleges spend on booze and the number of firsts their students achieve.
Churchill grad Grayden Reece-Smith has made a chart that appears to show a relationship between the amount of wine supplied by colleges and academic performance.
Students have widely accepted that this chart is the best excuse for bad behaviour since telling your mum you only read Playboy for the articles.
Speaking to The Tab, Land Economy grad Grayden said he decided to make the chart after reading about college spending on wine.
“I noticed that the colleges with the highest wine budgets were traditionally those that were also high in the Tompkins Table. I knew there would be a correlation before I made the chart.”
https://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2014/02/04/proof-booze-brings-top-grades-33080
I meant robots doing the jobs that humans do, or used to, would mean fewer humans working and therefore more leisure time, so they wouldnt need to partake in the ridiculously unnatural and damaging act of flying in a plane.
On top of that, council tax. Then food. Then utility bills. Then the car.
On the most optimistic assumptions, I had around £400 a month left spare.
On that basis, assuming the same amount put away every month, and no emergencies requiring an injection of cash (e.g. a replacement car) plus big ticket one off items like car insurance (which I pay annually as it’s cheaper) I would be gaining around £3000 a year.
So that would be around nine years to save up for a deposit once legal fees are factored in. And that’s round here.
It’s something of a struggle unless you’re in a very well paid job.
I'm guessing you don't do much long haul business trips? I don't know anyone who does who describes them as "jolly" - travel is exhausting and having to work during, and stay sharp for a long series of meetings straight after is not much fun. Unfortunately, their are times when it's unavoidable, like when you're trying to manage a series of independently-minded branches out of a central regional hub.
If humans cared about the earth they would make fewer flights, and if they had more time on their hands, maybe they would. Travel is exhausting as you say, but it needn't be. Humans are trying to make the world move at an unnatural pace in my opinion, and it is the major reason for unhappiness, as well as climate change.
"We'd like to come over from Hubei to meet with - "
"Oh, I'm sure we can conference call..."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51434470
If he were a nicer man hed not be doing his opponents job for them.
NEW THREAD
But the experience isn’t the food it’s the socialising that’s comes from the food and the environment around you. So people do the same thing but buy it in a costas or similar.
The differences of opinion I have with my other half when she leaves the house and goes to a drive through costa on the way to work when we have fantastic fresh coffee maker at home. We are comfortable (no rich) enough that we don’t really have to think hard about these things but, I came from a (relatively) very difficult upbringing and she went to private school.