I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
We do nothing about it because we're tied up in legal ribbons.
At some point, real-politik will drive the election of someone who's prepared to drive a cart & horses through that, unless moderate mainstream politicians can demonstrate they have better answers.
Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.
Absolutely and utterly insane. Totally out of control.
The seas were calm on the south coast yesterday and beautiful weather- probably explains the high number, you need to view these statistics in terms of annual averages.
We can't just rely upon bad weather to defend our borders.
Unless you're proposing a giant wave machine in the Channel.
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
Mr. Z, yes, it was only that similarity that alerted me to Unternehmen.
Interestingly, the German for bat is Fledermaus, which means flitter mouse, and that used to be the English word for them. Back when creatively writing it was quite a fun alternative to use.
It's been 6 and a half weeks since RCS1000 predicted that Germany would have 20,000 cases a day in 6 weeks and...
The total for the last 7 days is stuck at almost 70,000 so average 10,000 a day (one day last week reached over 14,000). So the prediction wasn't too far off? Well, it was based on a daily number from Leon of 600 odd which was completely wrong (the actual number was 2 or 3 times that depending on exactly which day was meant).
I'm surprised the numbers aren't rising quicker, in fact they seem to have levelled off the last week or so. In Cologne district (pop 1 million) the 7 day incidence peaked at 162 (per 100k) nine days ago and has since fallen to 117. Schools have been back for 3 weeks in NRW (and the twice-weekly testing of everyone in the schools), and it's been nearly all Delta for a few months already.
Not sure what's going on, as I thought Delta would be spreading quicker. Everything is pretty much open now, although 3G (vaccinated or recovered or tested) rules apply to get into lots of things, and medical masks have to be worn in lots of indoor situations. I see that 42% of 12-17 year olds in NRW have at least 1 vaccination. We've had a week of good weather, so I suppose that helps.
Vaccinations of adults seem to have slowed to a trickle. The next step has got to be getting rid of the free antigen tests (at least for those who have had the chance to be vaccinated). For certain "high-risk" situations (nightclubs, brothels) you already need already a PCR test if you are not vaccinated/recovered, and they cost 70+ euros a go, so that should make a few people a bit keener to get jabbed.
Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.
Absolutely and utterly insane. Totally out of control.
The seas were calm on the south coast yesterday and beautiful weather- probably explains the high number, you need to view these statistics in terms of annual averages.
We can't just rely upon bad weather to defend our borders.
Unless you're proposing a giant wave machine in the Channel.
That was Shakespeare's take
This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands,-- This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.”
"Against infection" is interesting and kinda relevant. Plus ca change...
Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.
These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.
Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.
What's not to love?
Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
Not really.
Firstly, at the time of Sealion Hitler was allied with Stalin so utterly irrelevant. Secondly, we weren't escorting German soldiers over with the RNLI and giving them a cup of tea and a sandwich when they landed. Thirdly, they'd be using Rhine barges with chug-a-chug motors, and not fast inflatable ribs with high-octane fuel. And, fourthly, they'd need to land tens of thousands with equipment - all at once - to get a foothold, and not dribble a few hundred over now and again whenever there was a break in the weather whilst dozens of Royal Navy destroyers roamed at will.
The Channel is only fordable if you have decent boats, good weather and a fair wind, and you don't shoot.
Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.
SKS ratings are far worse now than a year ago. Encourging my arse
Time to let go. The days of Corbyn are over. It was an experiment that failed spectacularly. Unless you're thinking of starting a new party under the leadership of someone like John McDonnell or Len McClusky (he's at a loose end) then time to aim your fire at the worst government we've seen since Thatcher's
Mr. Z, yes, it was only that similarity that alerted me to Unternehmen.
Interestingly, the German for bat is Fledermaus, which means flitter mouse, and that used to be the English word for them. Back when creatively writing it was quite a fun alternative to use.
Wonder why/when did we stop and called them 'bats'? Nothing like the French word(s)
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Concise and clear. There is also shared ownership to be squeezed in. Not sure there is a big gap between ii) and iii) but the govt policies should incentivise i) strongly and make iv) expensive and limited.
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Concise and clear. There is also shared ownership to be squeezed in. Not sure there is a big gap between ii) and iii) but the govt policies should incentivise i) strongly and make iv) expensive and limited.
Shares ownership is a sort of i (b). On the difference between ii and iii, I placed ii ahead of iii because I'd say they're equal - except when the tenant is in receipt of housing benefit. If state accommodation is available then the state saves the profit element of the HB payment to the landlord.
Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.
These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.
Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.
What's not to love?
Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
Not really.
Firstly, at the time of Sealion Hitler was allied with Stalin so utterly irrelevant. Secondly, we weren't escorting German soldiers over with the RNLI and giving them a cup of tea and a sandwich when they landed. Thirdly, they'd be using Rhine barges with chug-a-chug motors, and not fast inflatable ribs with high-octane fuel. And, fourthly, they'd need to land tens of thousands with equipment - all at once - to get a foothold, and not dribble a few hundred over now and again whenever there was a break in the weather whilst dozens of Royal Navy destroyers roamed at will.
The Channel is only fordable if you have decent boats, good weather and a fair wind, and you don't shoot.
It's generally accepted Sealion was definitively shelved at the time of the order for Barbarossa, December 1940, so it's the alliance with Stalin that's irrelevant. Other points not 100% serious.
With regard to landlords, which has been discussed this morning.
As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.
1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.
2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.
3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.
In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.
People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.
In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.
Nobody is talking about forcing landlords to sell, but they should certainly pay their fair share in taxes which they currently don't. A basic rate taxpayer earning net income from rent is on less than half the marginal net rate of tax than a basic rate taxpayer earning the exact same net income from working. Plus there are negative externalities to homes that are not owner-occupied so there is a reasonable economic argument to have a tax surcharge for such homes - but if people pay their taxes I don't see anyone saying that landlords should be compelled to sell.
However your point 1 is completely false. If landlords choose to sell then there must be someone who buys as a result, the house isn't demolished. So that could be sold to someone who is currently renting, possibly at a cheaper price since the people seeking to buy are no longer competing with those seeking to use houses as an investment instead, or possibly it could be bought as "social housing" if nobody else seeks to buy it.
Houses should be built because there's a shortage of housing, not because of the mix of housing, there is no need for social housing to be built first.
If a pregnant, single mother with young children turns up at the Council at risk of homelessness, and there is no Council housing available - the Council have a moral and statutory duty to house them. And the Council rely on private sector landlords for this. And private sector landlords are leaving the market due to regulation and tax, which you think should increase. So what is your solution exactly?
If the private landlord leaves the market then who owns the house they formerly owned?
If its a different private landlord who is willing to pay their taxes in full then the available supply of homes to rent is unchanged. If its a "social housing" provider then available supply of social homes has increased. If its someone who was renting who buys it instead, there's one fewer rental home, but also one fewer rental tenant, so the net available number of rental homes on the market is unchanged.
Mr. Z, yes, it was only that similarity that alerted me to Unternehmen.
Interestingly, the German for bat is Fledermaus, which means flitter mouse, and that used to be the English word for them. Back when creatively writing it was quite a fun alternative to use.
Wonder why/when did we stop and called them 'bats'? Nothing like the French word(s)
Good question. Scandi, apparently, says OED on a quick check.
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Concise and clear. There is also shared ownership to be squeezed in. Not sure there is a big gap between ii) and iii) but the govt policies should incentivise i) strongly and make iv) expensive and limited.
Shares ownership is a sort of i (b). On the difference between ii and iii, I placed ii ahead of iii because I'd say they're equal - except when the tenant is in receipt of housing benefit. If state accommodation is available then the state saves the profit element of the HB payment to the landlord.
The quality of the landlord makes a huge difference in both ii and iii and there are very good and very bad in both groups so lots of overlapping imo.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
We do nothing about it because we're tied up in legal ribbons.
At some point, real-politik will drive the election of someone who's prepared to drive a cart & horses through that, unless moderate mainstream politicians can demonstrate they have better answers.
My guess is that a hard right leader would emerge within the Tory party. Or UKIP would return, with extra fangs
2m illegal immigrants a year (and this is just a hypothesis OF COURSE) would be a crisis akin to war. All the usuals would fall away
It’s unlikely to get that bad, thank God, because 5,000 people crossing the Channel daily would mean tens of thousands traversing France, every day. I can’t see the French allowing that. Nor indeed Italy, Spain and Greece nearer the choke points
Fortress Europe will prevent it, probably
But 1000 a day is still a terrible headline for the Tories. It’s the lead item in The Times, today. Not tax
Phillip Thompson please explain why you think a basic rate landlord would have a lower marginal rate of tax than anybody else. As far as I know rent less genuine allowable expense are taxed at the same rate as everybody else.
Rent doesn't face National Insurance, which is simply Income Tax by another name for Employees.
Looks like the march back to the office continues: TfL stats from this morning: *Rush hour tub journeys up 33% on last week and 8% on yesterday * Rush hour bus journeys up 73% on last week and 10% on yesterday
Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.
These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.
Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.
What's not to love?
Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
Not really.
Firstly, at the time of Sealion Hitler was allied with Stalin so utterly irrelevant. Secondly, we weren't escorting German soldiers over with the RNLI and giving them a cup of tea and a sandwich when they landed. Thirdly, they'd be using Rhine barges with chug-a-chug motors, and not fast inflatable ribs with high-octane fuel. And, fourthly, they'd need to land tens of thousands with equipment - all at once - to get a foothold, and not dribble a few hundred over now and again whenever there was a break in the weather whilst dozens of Royal Navy destroyers roamed at will.
The Channel is only fordable if you have decent boats, good weather and a fair wind, and you don't shoot.
It's generally accepted Sealion was definitively shelved at the time of the order for Barbarossa, December 1940, so it's the alliance with Stalin that's irrelevant. Other points not 100% serious.
Mr. Z, yes, it was only that similarity that alerted me to Unternehmen.
Interestingly, the German for bat is Fledermaus, which means flitter mouse, and that used to be the English word for them. Back when creatively writing it was quite a fun alternative to use.
Wonder why/when did we stop and called them 'bats'? Nothing like the French word(s)
Good question. Scandi, apparently, says OED on a quick check.
Doubtful; Google (FWIW) says Norwegian is 'flaggermaus' and the other Scandi languages are similar. Haven't checked Icelandic. Nothing like it in Celtic languages, either. Interesting.
But 1000 a day is still a terrible headline for the Tories. It’s the lead item in The Times, today. Not tax
the story got over 17000 btl comments on the dm website from people in cardigans with missing buttons so im starting to rethink my opinion that the tories dont have to care about this
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Taxing holiday homes (iv) out of existence is going to be tricky. They could be put in to an endless loss making company; which is really just a vehicle to disguise that it is your personal holiday home, and thus avoid paying any tax. I suspect that most of these enterprises do actually make losses, or are of very limited profitability.
So how would these collossal swinging taxes be administered, without also destroying legitimate businesses in the tourism industry? The impact of Airbnb on the local property market varies significantly: in many areas it is a benefit, providing a boost to the service economy. You can't just wage war on the tourism industry due to obsessions about affordable housing. I've said before that interventions can be justified, but they should be localised.
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
I thought 'Blighty' was some sort of Hindi/Urdu originally word used by the Army there. The Arabs also, of course, gave us algebra.
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Concise and clear. There is also shared ownership to be squeezed in. Not sure there is a big gap between ii) and iii) but the govt policies should incentivise i) strongly and make iv) expensive and limited.
iv - i.e, holiday lets are often not taxed at all as it's usually taxed via business rates rather than council tax and often falls within the Business Rates relief that mean small firms pay nothing.
I've said this before - but the first thing that needs to occur is that all assets of the same type should be taxed in the exact same way (so council tax on all properties and no interest rate relief on mortgages / loans).
And then penalities need to be applied to the holiday lets / second homes to discourage their use in some areas. This probably needs to be done on an area basis as a national policy won't work.
Keir Starmer net rating shows he is more popular with LD than Labour voters, confirms my suspicion he would prefer a hung parliament at the next election and coalition with the LDs a la Cameron 2010 than a Labour majority and trying to control his backbenchers. Of course it is the more realistic option for him anyway with SNP C + S
Lib Dem voters +19 Labour voters +16 Remainers +4 London 0 25-49 yrs -15 50-64 yrs -21 18-24s -27 Working-class -27 Non-London south -28 Scotland -36 Pensioners -38 Leavers -50 Conservatives -61
With regard to landlords, which has been discussed this morning.
As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.
1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.
2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.
3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.
In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.
People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.
In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.
Nobody is talking about forcing landlords to sell, but they should certainly pay their fair share in taxes which they currently don't. A basic rate taxpayer earning net income from rent is on less than half the marginal net rate of tax than a basic rate taxpayer earning the exact same net income from working. Plus there are negative externalities to homes that are not owner-occupied so there is a reasonable economic argument to have a tax surcharge for such homes - but if people pay their taxes I don't see anyone saying that landlords should be compelled to sell.
However your point 1 is completely false. If landlords choose to sell then there must be someone who buys as a result, the house isn't demolished. So that could be sold to someone who is currently renting, possibly at a cheaper price since the people seeking to buy are no longer competing with those seeking to use houses as an investment instead, or possibly it could be bought as "social housing" if nobody else seeks to buy it.
Houses should be built because there's a shortage of housing, not because of the mix of housing, there is no need for social housing to be built first.
If a pregnant, single mother with young children turns up at the Council at risk of homelessness, and there is no Council housing available - the Council have a moral and statutory duty to house them. And the Council rely on private sector landlords for this. And private sector landlords are leaving the market due to regulation and tax, which you think should increase. So what is your solution exactly?
If the private landlord leaves the market then who owns the house they formerly owned?
If its a different private landlord who is willing to pay their taxes in full then the available supply of homes to rent is unchanged. If its a "social housing" provider then available supply of social homes has increased. If its someone who was renting who buys it instead, there's one fewer rental home, but also one fewer rental tenant, so the net available number of rental homes on the market is unchanged.
Not quite - as is currently being demonstrated in the Isle of Wight were most recent sales have been to incomers (either permanent residents or holiday lets) vastly reducing the available supply of rental property.
To say it sounds like a nightmare there would be to underplay the seriousness of the situation...
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Taxing holiday homes (iv) out of existence is going to be tricky. They could be put in to an endless loss making company; which is really just a vehicle to disguise that it is your personal holiday home, and thus avoid paying any tax. I suspect that most of these enterprises do actually make losses, or are of very limited profitability.
So how would these collossal swinging taxes be administered, without also destroying legitimate businesses in the tourism industry? The impact of Airbnb on the local property market varies significantly: in many areas it is a benefit, providing a boost to the service economy. You can't just wage war on the tourism industry due to obsessions about affordable housing. I've said before that interventions can be justified, but they should be localised.
which is really just a vehicle to disguise that it is your personal holiday home, and thus avoid paying any tax
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.
Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning. By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
Burnham is Labour's only chance to regain the Red Wall in my view, otherwise the best Starmer can hope for is win a few of the most marginal Tory seats on Labour's target list and hope the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats in the South and the SNP pick up most of the remaining Tory seats in Scotland to force a hung parliament in 2024 where he would then likely become PM.
Even the DUP would probably not back Boris now unless he removed the border in the Irish Sea so Boris needs another Tory majority to stay PM
While in speculation mode if Boris leads the Tories into the next election and fails to win a majority then he will be gone. A new Tory leader might succeed in forming a government in a hung parliament if the Tories are the largest party by a large margin.
Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.
Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning. By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
Burnham is Labour's only chance to regain the Red Wall in my view, otherwise the best Starmer can hope for is win a few of the most marginal Tory seats on Labour's target list and hope the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats in the South and the SNP pick up most of the remaining Tory seats in Scotland to force a hung parliament in 2024 where he would then likely become PM.
Even the DUP would probably not back Boris now unless he removed the border in the Irish Sea so Boris needs another Tory majority to stay PM
While in speculation mode if Boris leads the Tories into the next election and fails to win a majority then he will be gone. A new Tory leader might succeed in forming a government in a hung parliament if the Tories are the largest party by a large margin.
I doubt it.
Only way a new Tory leader would win LD support would be closer alignment to the SM and CU and only way they would win SNP support would be indyref2 both of which would split the Tory Party.
Only way they would win DUP support would be to impose a hard border in Ireland and remove the Irish Sea border and go to No Deal with the EU which would create major problems for the GFA and the economy.
If the Tories fail to win a majority and Boris goes they are better off going into opposition and revitalising united under a new leader. They would also have opposition largely to themselves with Starmer PM propped up by the LDs and SNP
Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.
These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.
Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.
What's not to love?
Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
Not really.
Firstly, at the time of Sealion Hitler was allied with Stalin so utterly irrelevant. Secondly, we weren't escorting German soldiers over with the RNLI and giving them a cup of tea and a sandwich when they landed. Thirdly, they'd be using Rhine barges with chug-a-chug motors, and not fast inflatable ribs with high-octane fuel. And, fourthly, they'd need to land tens of thousands with equipment - all at once - to get a foothold, and not dribble a few hundred over now and again whenever there was a break in the weather whilst dozens of Royal Navy destroyers roamed at will.
The Channel is only fordable if you have decent boats, good weather and a fair wind, and you don't shoot.
It's generally accepted Sealion was definitively shelved at the time of the order for Barbarossa, December 1940, so it's the alliance with Stalin that's irrelevant. Other points not 100% serious.
Good simple idea. Why have the clever clogs in the ministries either rejected it or not even considered it (as per Lilley's final paragraph)?
Because there is no possibility that a government backed private insurance scheme would be simple or remedy the difficulty or not go broke.
I don't see why a government backed insurance scheme would go broke. Nor why it can't be simpler than what we have now. Anyway Andrew Dilnot sounded quietly confident that at least some of his proposals of over ten years ago might be brought in.
On going broke: Government backed means it can't fail - like banks in 2008.
Simplicity: Have a try at drafting the legislation.
What do you do about who should and who need not obtain private insurance and the grey area of those in the middle who may or may not qualify for free care; what do you do about those who should have obtained insurance and didn't and have dissipated their assets.
As always things are simple for the asset free and the very rich. It's the middling sort (Tory voters mostly) who will be landed with a problem.
IIRC Dilnot's suggestion about insurance was that if there were a cap (£35K he said) that £35K would be a quantifiable amount for private insurance for those who wanted to. That is different from a scheme funded by private insurance.
Dilnot's scheme should have been put in place years ago.
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Taxing holiday homes (iv) out of existence is going to be tricky. They could be put in to an endless loss making company; which is really just a vehicle to disguise that it is your personal holiday home, and thus avoid paying any tax. I suspect that most of these enterprises do actually make losses, or are of very limited profitability.
So how would these collossal swinging taxes be administered, without also destroying legitimate businesses in the tourism industry? The impact of Airbnb on the local property market varies significantly: in many areas it is a benefit, providing a boost to the service economy. You can't just wage war on the tourism industry due to obsessions about affordable housing. I've said before that interventions can be justified, but they should be localised.
In Cornwall - tourism is 20% of the economy and is hated by a large number of people who don't work in it (and a lot who do).
on the Isle of Wight new holiday homes have created an accommodation crisis that will play out over the next few months. 2 bed properties that were previously £700 are now £1200+ a month and few people can afford that amount, yet they still need to live somewhere.
As for the idea of a loss making company, how does that work when the debts will be pinned to the property and a court asks for the property to be sold to recover the unpaid tax
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
AIUI there have been three major migrations 1. Homo sapiens out of Africa and North and East. 2. Ditto out of Asia and into what we call the Americas 3. Europe across to the Americas.
And of course a subsidiary one from SE Asia into the Pacific Islands.
Mr. Eagles, interesting. I didn't know the German for 'Operation' was 'Undertaking'.
Edited extra bit: I was amused earlier this year to discover their word for tortoise means 'shield toad'.
Mr Dancer, the other term the Germans used was "Fall" which is translated as "Case", for example "Fall Gelb (Case Yellow)", the invasion of France in 1940.
Who penned that I wonder. It sort of reads as if English wasn't his or her first language. Surely a native speaker would say 'No rise in..' rather than 'No rise to...'.
Maybe Starmer needs to go on the line so: “at the last election you made the commitment not to raise NI and told us that you had a plan to fix the care system. Which was the deceit, or was it both of them?”
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Taxing holiday homes (iv) out of existence is going to be tricky. They could be put in to an endless loss making company; which is really just a vehicle to disguise that it is your personal holiday home, and thus avoid paying any tax. I suspect that most of these enterprises do actually make losses, or are of very limited profitability.
So how would these collossal swinging taxes be administered, without also destroying legitimate businesses in the tourism industry? The impact of Airbnb on the local property market varies significantly: in many areas it is a benefit, providing a boost to the service economy. You can't just wage war on the tourism industry due to obsessions about affordable housing. I've said before that interventions can be justified, but they should be localised.
In Cornwall - tourism is 20% of the economy and is hated by a large number of people who don't work in it (and a lot who do).
on the Isle of Wight new holiday homes have created an accommodation crisis that will play out over the next few months. 2 bed properties that were previously £700 are now £1200+ a month and few people can afford that amount, yet they still need to live somewhere.
As for the idea of a loss making company, how does that work when the debts will be pinned to the property and a court asks for the property to be sold to recover the unpaid tax
AIUI much of 'tourist' Wales feels very much like the Cornish do.
Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.
Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning. By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
Burnham is Labour's only chance to regain the Red Wall in my view, otherwise the best Starmer can hope for is win a few of the most marginal Tory seats on Labour's target list and hope the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats in the South and the SNP pick up most of the remaining Tory seats in Scotland to force a hung parliament in 2024 where he would then likely become PM.
Even the DUP would probably not back Boris now unless he removed the border in the Irish Sea so Boris needs another Tory majority to stay PM
While in speculation mode if Boris leads the Tories into the next election and fails to win a majority then he will be gone. A new Tory leader might succeed in forming a government in a hung parliament if the Tories are the largest party by a large margin.
I doubt it.
Only way a new Tory leader would win LD support would be closer alignment to the SM and CU and only way they would win SNP support would be indyref2 both of which would split the Tory Party.
Only way they would win DUP support would be to impose a hard border in Ireland and remove the Irish Sea border and go to No Deal with the EU which would create major problems for the GFA and the economy.
If the Tories fail to win a majority and Boris goes they are better off going into opposition and revitalising united under a new leader. They would also have opposition largely to themselves with Starmer PM propped up by the LDs and SNP
That's probably true. SNP manoeuvres would split Labour and probably not command a majority so there would be some interesting votes.
Maybe Starmer needs to go on the line so: “at the last election you made the commitment not to raise NI and told us that you had a plan to fix the care system. Which was the deceit, or was it both of them?”
I'm also waiting for the promise that the tax will be legally ringfenced followed by a question regarding the ringfenced foreign aid budget.
Maybe Starmer needs to go on the line so: “at the last election you made the commitment not to raise NI and told us that you had a plan to fix the care system. Which was the deceit, or was it both of them?”
To which the only response, and a somewhat oblique one, is Covid. Everything changed.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
Wasn't that often the case with Europeans moving to the Americas. The young men went first, the womenfolk followed
Looks like the march back to the office continues: TfL stats from this morning: *Rush hour tub journeys up 33% on last week and 8% on yesterday * Rush hour bus journeys up 73% on last week and 10% on yesterday
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
Mr. Z, yes, it was only that similarity that alerted me to Unternehmen.
Interestingly, the German for bat is Fledermaus, which means flitter mouse, and that used to be the English word for them. Back when creatively writing it was quite a fun alternative to use.
Wonder why/when did we stop and called them 'bats'? Nothing like the French word(s)
Good question. Scandi, apparently, says OED on a quick check.
Doubtful; Google (FWIW) says Norwegian is 'flaggermaus' and the other Scandi languages are similar. Haven't checked Icelandic. Nothing like it in Celtic languages, either. Interesting.
Seems as if the other languages have changed similarly - OED was cviting the old words in those languages.
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word provably used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78th time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
Let the market solve the pay rates.
If demand for a certain type of employee is high, but the supply of people wanting to work that job is low, then the solution is to increase pay until people are tempted to take that job.
Nobody has a divine right to fill a job for minimum wage.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
Wasn't that often the case with Europeans moving to the Americas. The young men went first, the womenfolk followed
And Australia ... [edit} I mean, the second migration, the C18-C19 one.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
"Increase taxes to pay higher salaries for"? So these jobs that people born here won't do are in the public sector?
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word provably used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78th time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
I thought the oldest word was some variety of 'Mummy'. But I like the idea of it being alcohol, so thanks.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
No, we don’t need these people. AI, drones, remote working, self driving vehicles and robotics are about to make millions redundant. Soon the problem will be TOO MANY workers
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
Let the market solve the pay rates.
If demand for a certain type of employee is high, but the supply of people wanting to work that job is low, then the solution is to increase pay until people are tempted to take that job.
Nobody has a divine right to fill a job for minimum wage.
How much do you think care home pay needs to increase to attract enough workers with our demographics? They already have big shortages.
And arent we getting 50 new hospitals with new staff and 20,000 new police? 100,000 lorry drivers? New surveyors to deal with the backlogs of EWS forms?
A lot of these roles are public sector so need some really big tax rises if we do it that way.
Yes, it's the word "guarantee" that is a hostage to fortune. No government should make such a guarantee, as events, dear boy, are unpredictable (e.g. Covid).
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
No, we don’t need these people. AI, drones, remote working, self driving vehicles and robotics are about to make millions redundant. Soon the problem will be TOO MANY workers
Which would then require a UBI funded by a robot tax.
Shorter term however if we need more immigrants to fill work vacancies it is because we have a birthrate below replacement level
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Mr. Z, yes, it was only that similarity that alerted me to Unternehmen.
Interestingly, the German for bat is Fledermaus, which means flitter mouse, and that used to be the English word for them. Back when creatively writing it was quite a fun alternative to use.
Wonder why/when did we stop and called them 'bats'? Nothing like the French word(s)
Good question. Scandi, apparently, says OED on a quick check.
Doubtful; Google (FWIW) says Norwegian is 'flaggermaus' and the other Scandi languages are similar. Haven't checked Icelandic. Nothing like it in Celtic languages, either. Interesting.
Seems as if the other languages have changed similarly - OED was cviting the old words in those languages.
SOD has the emergence of 'bat' in English as L16: 1570 - 1599. So fairly late on in the the piece it would seem.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
Wasn't that often the case with Europeans moving to the Americas. The young men went first, the womenfolk followed
And Australia ... [edit} I mean, the second migration, the C18-C19 one.
Quite possibly the first one too. I went to an exhibition in the Museum of the South Pacific in Auckland some years ago which described how the Pacific Islands (including Aotearoa) were settled. Large canoes were send out, loaded with enough food for four weeks, and the crew instructed to follow a particular star. If after two weeks they'd found no land they were to return, and that star would be 'crossed of'. If they found land, then some would stay there and the rest would return with the news.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
No, we don’t need these people. AI, drones, remote working, self driving vehicles and robotics are about to make millions redundant. Soon the problem will be TOO MANY workers
And we'll all be working 3 days weeks. Sounds like the promises of the 60's.
i) Owner occupied ii) Council/Housing association for rent iii) Private, long term rent iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too. Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv). I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types. More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Taxing holiday homes (iv) out of existence is going to be tricky. They could be put in to an endless loss making company; which is really just a vehicle to disguise that it is your personal holiday home, and thus avoid paying any tax. I suspect that most of these enterprises do actually make losses, or are of very limited profitability.
So how would these collossal swinging taxes be administered, without also destroying legitimate businesses in the tourism industry? The impact of Airbnb on the local property market varies significantly: in many areas it is a benefit, providing a boost to the service economy. You can't just wage war on the tourism industry due to obsessions about affordable housing. I've said before that interventions can be justified, but they should be localised.
In Cornwall - tourism is 20% of the economy and is hated by a large number of people who don't work in it (and a lot who do).
on the Isle of Wight new holiday homes have created an accommodation crisis that will play out over the next few months. 2 bed properties that were previously £700 are now £1200+ a month and few people can afford that amount, yet they still need to live somewhere.
As for the idea of a loss making company, how does that work when the debts will be pinned to the property and a court asks for the property to be sold to recover the unpaid tax
Tourism, second homes etc aren't new in the UK. Consider the seaside towns such a Brighton. How did they evolve?
The problem is that people want
- The locality to be frozen in time...... - ....Apart from, no actual jobs. In Par in Cornwall, incomers tried to get a campaign to get the china clay extraction business stopped.... - Lots of nice shops and restaurants - Cheap housing for the locals - Lots of cheap locals to employ cheaply - No houses built
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word provably used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78th time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
I thought the oldest word was some variety of 'Mummy'. But I like the idea of it being alcohol, so thanks.
Kaka meaning shit is a contender. Coriander is the oldest Greek derived word you use. Automaton meaning automaton occurs in the Iliad.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
No, we don’t need these people. AI, drones, remote working, self driving vehicles and robotics are about to make millions redundant. Soon the problem will be TOO MANY workers
And as happened before other jobs will arrive that will replace them.
Also self driving cars - not in the near future unless you ban all non self driving vehicles.
Mr. Z, yes, it was only that similarity that alerted me to Unternehmen.
Interestingly, the German for bat is Fledermaus, which means flitter mouse, and that used to be the English word for them. Back when creatively writing it was quite a fun alternative to use.
Wonder why/when did we stop and called them 'bats'? Nothing like the French word(s)
Good question. Scandi, apparently, says OED on a quick check.
Doubtful; Google (FWIW) says Norwegian is 'flaggermaus' and the other Scandi languages are similar. Haven't checked Icelandic. Nothing like it in Celtic languages, either. Interesting.
Seems as if the other languages have changed similarly - OED was cviting the old words in those languages.
SOD has the emergence of 'bat' in English as L16: 1570 - 1599. So fairly late on in the the piece it would seem.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
Let the market solve the pay rates.
If demand for a certain type of employee is high, but the supply of people wanting to work that job is low, then the solution is to increase pay until people are tempted to take that job.
Nobody has a divine right to fill a job for minimum wage.
How much do you think care home pay needs to increase to attract enough workers with our demographics? They already have big shortages.
And arent we getting 50 new hospitals with new staff and 20,000 new police? 100,000 lorry drivers? New surveyors to deal with the backlogs of EWS forms?
A lot of these roles are public sector so need some really big tax rises if we do it that way.
If private sector low-wage jobs (which tend to include more low-wage jobs than public sector jobs do) go up in wages then that will increase tax revenues for HMRC. If fewer people are on minimum wage then government expenditure on benefits like Universal Credit will be reduced.
Higher productivity and competition leading to the elimination of low wage jobs will lead to both higher growth and higher tax revenues without higher tax rates, while simultaneously resulting in lower expenditure on in-work benefits; that extra revenue can be used to fund higher pay rates for those jobs that are low wage in the public sector.
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word provably used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78th time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
I thought the oldest word was some variety of 'Mummy'. But I like the idea of it being alcohol, so thanks.
‘Mummy’ is surely the oldest word of all. Onomatopoeic? Mimicking the baby seeking the lactating nipple, or even, simply, that sound becoming a word.
The theory around ‘alcohol’ refers to it as a written word. It’s the oldest word that can be traced all the way through history to the oldest extant texts. Or so it is alleged, probably by drunk people
Mr. Z, yes, it was only that similarity that alerted me to Unternehmen.
Interestingly, the German for bat is Fledermaus, which means flitter mouse, and that used to be the English word for them. Back when creatively writing it was quite a fun alternative to use.
Wonder why/when did we stop and called them 'bats'? Nothing like the French word(s)
Good question. Scandi, apparently, says OED on a quick check.
Doubtful; Google (FWIW) says Norwegian is 'flaggermaus' and the other Scandi languages are similar. Haven't checked Icelandic. Nothing like it in Celtic languages, either. Interesting.
Seems as if the other languages have changed similarly - OED was cviting the old words in those languages.
SOD has the emergence of 'bat' in English as L16: 1570 - 1599. So fairly late on in the the piece it would seem.
Or, indeed, those who chortled merrily at the idea of the UK reneging on recently-signed agreements.
The logic is the same in each case- if a government decides to break a promise, there's not a lot to be done about it. It just forfeits trust for the next promise it makes. In a way, it's quite touching that Johnson et al think that enshrining "this money must go on health and social care" in law means anything at all.
But they will ultimately get away with it for as long as they keep 40% of the voting public on board. And a combination of coddling their core vote (homeowning pensioners) and "Brexit is always in peril" will add up to enough for long enough.
Still, probably tactless to mention face eating leopards, eh?
It's been 6 and a half weeks since RCS1000 predicted that Germany would have 20,000 cases a day in 6 weeks and...
The total for the last 7 days is stuck at almost 70,000 so average 10,000 a day (one day last week reached over 14,000). So the prediction wasn't too far off? Well, it was based on a daily number from Leon of 600 odd which was completely wrong (the actual number was 2 or 3 times that depending on exactly which day was meant).
I'm surprised the numbers aren't rising quicker, in fact they seem to have levelled off the last week or so. In Cologne district (pop 1 million) the 7 day incidence peaked at 162 (per 100k) nine days ago and has since fallen to 117. Schools have been back for 3 weeks in NRW (and the twice-weekly testing of everyone in the schools), and it's been nearly all Delta for a few months already.
Not sure what's going on, as I thought Delta would be spreading quicker. Everything is pretty much open now, although 3G (vaccinated or recovered or tested) rules apply to get into lots of things, and medical masks have to be worn in lots of indoor situations. I see that 42% of 12-17 year olds in NRW have at least 1 vaccination. We've had a week of good weather, so I suppose that helps.
Vaccinations of adults seem to have slowed to a trickle. The next step has got to be getting rid of the free antigen tests (at least for those who have had the chance to be vaccinated). For certain "high-risk" situations (nightclubs, brothels) you already need already a PCR test if you are not vaccinated/recovered, and they cost 70+ euros a go, so that should make a few people a bit keener to get jabbed.
Everywhere i have been in Germany, compliance has been very good; I have been challenged a few times for forgetting to mask up. Attitudes are at least as good as Britain last year, with most people willing to make the effort. And the summer heat continues; having tired of sausage, I am today enjoying a cheese plate outside, with a view over the Danube
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word provably used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78th time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
I thought the oldest word was some variety of 'Mummy'. But I like the idea of it being alcohol, so thanks.
‘Mummy’ is surely the oldest word of all. Onomatopoeic? Mimicking the baby seeking the lactating nipple, or even, simply, that sound becoming a word.
The theory around ‘alcohol’ refers to it as a written word. It’s the oldest word that can be traced all the way through history to the oldest extant texts. Or so it is alleged, probably by drunk people
There's an ancient Greek work 'alkai' meaning 'courage'. I wonder if that ties in with a sort of 'Dutch Courage' sense.
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Is there any human society with NO form of intoxication? It is remarkably universal
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
No, we don’t need these people. AI, drones, remote working, self driving vehicles and robotics are about to make millions redundant. Soon the problem will be TOO MANY workers
And as happened before other jobs will arrive that will replace them.
Also self driving cars - not in the near future unless you ban all non self driving vehicles.
Self driving cars seem broadly solved for motorways, but any sort of narrow country lane where you need to potentially back up and they're stuffed. Which rules them out for holiday trips down to Devon and Cornwall.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
No, we don’t need these people. AI, drones, remote working, self driving vehicles and robotics are about to make millions redundant. Soon the problem will be TOO MANY workers
And we'll all be working 3 days weeks. Sounds like the promises of the 60's.
Yep, it has long been forecast that technology would have delivered lives consisting almost entirely of leisure by now
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
On the pension lock, I'm at slight odds with @HYUFD - I don't think ending it will erode significantly pensioner support for the Tories simply because most will recognise that the formula calculations has created such a large distortion and that an 8.5% increase at this time would be far too much. Sure, if the Tories end the triple lock, that would be something different but a one-off suspension is justified.
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
One thing we know is that the most likely (and seemingly the only) way to end up losing your job in a Boris administration is by disagreeing with him.
That's true in all administrations, it has to be for collective responsibility to function.
The thing is that sometimes people have principles and stand up for them as for instance happened in May's administration where there was a revolving door in Cabinet of people resigning because they disagreed with her.
It seems not a single member of the Cabinet has enough principles to resign over this though.
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
Comments
At some point, real-politik will drive the election of someone who's prepared to drive a cart & horses through that, unless moderate mainstream politicians can demonstrate they have better answers.
Unless you're proposing a giant wave machine in the Channel.
i) Owner occupied
ii) Council/Housing association for rent
iii) Private, long term rent
iv) Holiday/2nd homes for short term rent/OOs to frequent whilst on holiday or let out.
I'd broadly categorise them in that order in terms of societal benefit. Homes that can potentially be occupied all year round in cat (iv) need colossal swinging taxes. They're the biggest issue, quite frankly if they're able to be let out for big money on airbnb they can afford the taxes too.
Cat (iii) isn't the best, particularly when the tenants are social tenants and should to my mind be in cat (ii) - but it does have a role to play. The taxation shouldn't be to the level of (iv) but it should be more onerous than (i). And there should be incentives to encourage landlords to offer long term tenancy so they're not pushing to cat (iv).
I accept cat (i) isn't for everyone, but it should be the normal default ahead of the other types.
More housing, of all types being built is needed for now. There's quite a few estates going up near me tbh, though happily not right behind the house... (For now !)
Interestingly, the German for bat is Fledermaus, which means flitter mouse, and that used to be the English word for them. Back when creatively writing it was quite a fun alternative to use.
The total for the last 7 days is stuck at almost 70,000 so average 10,000 a day (one day last week reached over 14,000).
So the prediction wasn't too far off? Well, it was based on a daily number from Leon of 600 odd which was completely wrong (the actual number was 2 or 3 times that depending on exactly which day was meant).
I'm surprised the numbers aren't rising quicker, in fact they seem to have levelled off the last week or so.
In Cologne district (pop 1 million) the 7 day incidence peaked at 162 (per 100k) nine days ago and has since fallen to 117. Schools have been back for 3 weeks in NRW (and the twice-weekly testing of everyone in the schools), and it's been nearly all Delta for a few months already.
Not sure what's going on, as I thought Delta would be spreading quicker. Everything is pretty much open now, although 3G (vaccinated or recovered or tested) rules apply to get into lots of things, and medical masks have to be worn in lots of indoor situations. I see that 42% of 12-17 year olds in NRW have at least 1 vaccination. We've had a week of good weather, so I suppose that helps.
Vaccinations of adults seem to have slowed to a trickle. The next step has got to be getting rid of the free antigen tests (at least for those who have had the chance to be vaccinated). For certain "high-risk" situations (nightclubs, brothels) you already need already a PCR test if you are not vaccinated/recovered, and they cost 70+ euros a go, so that should make a few people a bit keener to get jabbed.
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,--
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.”
"Against infection" is interesting and kinda relevant. Plus ca change...
Firstly, at the time of Sealion Hitler was allied with Stalin so utterly irrelevant. Secondly, we weren't escorting German soldiers over with the RNLI and giving them a cup of tea and a sandwich when they landed. Thirdly, they'd be using Rhine barges with chug-a-chug motors, and not fast inflatable ribs with high-octane fuel. And, fourthly, they'd need to land tens of thousands with equipment - all at once - to get a foothold, and not dribble a few hundred over now and again whenever there was a break in the weather whilst dozens of Royal Navy destroyers roamed at will.
The Channel is only fordable if you have decent boats, good weather and a fair wind, and you don't shoot.
Which I only know from using the software for sonar visualisation.
If its a different private landlord who is willing to pay their taxes in full then the available supply of homes to rent is unchanged.
If its a "social housing" provider then available supply of social homes has increased.
If its someone who was renting who buys it instead, there's one fewer rental home, but also one fewer rental tenant, so the net available number of rental homes on the market is unchanged.
2m illegal immigrants a year (and this is just a hypothesis OF COURSE) would be a crisis akin to war. All the usuals would fall away
It’s unlikely to get that bad, thank God, because 5,000 people crossing the Channel daily would mean tens of thousands traversing France, every day. I can’t see the French allowing that. Nor indeed Italy, Spain and Greece nearer the choke points
Fortress Europe will prevent it, probably
But 1000 a day is still a terrible headline for the Tories. It’s the lead item in The Times, today. Not tax
*Rush hour tub journeys up 33% on last week and 8% on yesterday
* Rush hour bus journeys up 73% on last week and 10% on yesterday
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1435169471740715009
As usual, you're trolling and talking shit.
Nothing like it in Celtic languages, either. Interesting.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
So how would these collossal swinging taxes be administered, without also destroying legitimate businesses in the tourism industry? The impact of Airbnb on the local property market varies significantly: in many areas it is a benefit, providing a boost to the service economy. You can't just wage war on the tourism industry due to obsessions about affordable housing. I've said before that interventions can be justified, but they should be localised.
The Arabs also, of course, gave us algebra.
I've said this before - but the first thing that needs to occur is that all assets of the same type should be taxed in the exact same way (so council tax on all properties and no interest rate relief on mortgages / loans).
And then penalities need to be applied to the holiday lets / second homes to discourage their use in some areas. This probably needs to be done on an area basis as a national policy won't work.
Lib Dem voters +19
Labour voters +16
Remainers +4
London 0
25-49 yrs -15
50-64 yrs -21
18-24s -27
Working-class -27
Non-London south -28
Scotland -36
Pensioners -38
Leavers -50
Conservatives -61
YouGov Sep 3https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1435167291889573889?s=20
https://twitter.com/conservatives/status/1202879393313574912
To say it sounds like a nightmare there would be to underplay the seriousness of the situation...
Sounds like tax evasion to me.
https://twitter.com/DeclouxJ/status/1434905848682266630
More than 1,000 civil servants received six-figure ‘golden goodbyes’ worth over £100million in the four years since a law was passed to ban them
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/05/1000-civil-servants-received-six-figure-golden-goodbyes-worth/
Only way a new Tory leader would win LD support would be closer alignment to the SM and CU and only way they would win SNP support would be indyref2 both of which would split the Tory Party.
Only way they would win DUP support would be to impose a hard border in Ireland and remove the Irish Sea border and go to No Deal with the EU which would create major problems for the GFA and the economy.
If the Tories fail to win a majority and Boris goes they are better off going into opposition and revitalising united under a new leader. They would also have opposition largely to themselves with Starmer PM propped up by the LDs and SNP
I meant my points not yours.
Is he resigning?
“I’m getting into a government car” he points out.
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1435175170524815363
Simplicity: Have a try at drafting the legislation.
What do you do about who should and who need not obtain private insurance and the grey area of those in the middle who may or may not qualify for free care; what do you do about those who should have obtained insurance and didn't and have dissipated their assets.
As always things are simple for the asset free and the very rich. It's the middling sort (Tory voters mostly) who will be landed with a problem.
IIRC Dilnot's suggestion about insurance was that if there were a cap (£35K he said) that £35K would be a quantifiable amount for private insurance for those who wanted to. That is different from a scheme funded by private insurance.
Dilnot's scheme should have been put in place years ago.
You know it's not the end.
on the Isle of Wight new holiday homes have created an accommodation crisis that will play out over the next few months. 2 bed properties that were previously £700 are now £1200+ a month and few people can afford that amount, yet they still need to live somewhere.
As for the idea of a loss making company, how does that work when the debts will be pinned to the property and a court asks for the property to be sold to recover the unpaid tax
1. Homo sapiens out of Africa and North and East.
2. Ditto out of Asia and into what we call the Americas
3. Europe across to the Americas.
And of course a subsidiary one from SE Asia into the Pacific Islands.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word provably used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78th time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
If demand for a certain type of employee is high, but the supply of people wanting to work that job is low, then the solution is to increase pay until people are tempted to take that job.
Nobody has a divine right to fill a job for minimum wage.
But I like the idea of it being alcohol, so thanks.
And arent we getting 50 new hospitals with new staff and 20,000 new police? 100,000 lorry drivers? New surveyors to deal with the backlogs of EWS forms?
A lot of these roles are public sector so need some really big tax rises if we do it that way.
Shorter term however if we need more immigrants to fill work vacancies it is because we have a birthrate below replacement level
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
The problem is that people want
- The locality to be frozen in time......
- ....Apart from, no actual jobs. In Par in Cornwall, incomers tried to get a campaign to get the china clay extraction business stopped....
- Lots of nice shops and restaurants
- Cheap housing for the locals
- Lots of cheap locals to employ cheaply
- No houses built
Also self driving cars - not in the near future unless you ban all non self driving vehicles.
Higher productivity and competition leading to the elimination of low wage jobs will lead to both higher growth and higher tax revenues without higher tax rates, while simultaneously resulting in lower expenditure on in-work benefits; that extra revenue can be used to fund higher pay rates for those jobs that are low wage in the public sector.
Students used to (ahem) lap it up.
And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”.
He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
More here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-host-major-no10-24924627?111
The theory around ‘alcohol’ refers to it as a written word. It’s the oldest word that can be traced all the way through history to the oldest extant texts. Or so it is alleged, probably by drunk people
The logic is the same in each case- if a government decides to break a promise, there's not a lot to be done about it. It just forfeits trust for the next promise it makes. In a way, it's quite touching that Johnson et al think that enshrining "this money must go on health and social care" in law means anything at all.
But they will ultimately get away with it for as long as they keep 40% of the voting public on board. And a combination of coddling their core vote (homeowning pensioners) and "Brexit is always in peril" will add up to enough for long enough.
Still, probably tactless to mention face eating leopards, eh?
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority
44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority
41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority
5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
The thing is that sometimes people have principles and stand up for them as for instance happened in May's administration where there was a revolving door in Cabinet of people resigning because they disagreed with her.
It seems not a single member of the Cabinet has enough principles to resign over this though.