nielh said:

JosiasJessop said:

The old freehold versus leasehold problem arises again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38827661

Is this a case of caveat emptor, and/or are the leaseholders taking the p*ss ?

(Why would you get a leasehold on a new, non-shared ownership house anyway?)

Its drawing attention to a deceptive and dysfunctional system that needs reforming.

It suggests we need ground rent control for leaseholders, not just protection for tenants as they have in Germany.

But I think by creating leasehold single family houses - where freehold works fine - the developers are taking the piss and exploiting a housing shortage which they're very happy with and to which no politician seems to propose the obvious solution - build more.

Richard Bacon MP does, and was responsible for the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, but he's in a minority.

'I am glad for example the Mr Corbyn has been so forthright about his views on Palestine, Irish republicanism, Israel, Islamic Terrorism and so forth, it means the voters get to consider a fuller picture of him when them put their tick in the box. For the same reason it was good to know about the nasty views of Mr Griffin and his associates.'

I guess Im going to have to repeat my usual reminders on this:

Corbyn' critical views on Israel re: Palestine are much more in tune with those of the public, who whenever polled show overwhelmingly negative views of Israel. Just because those in the westminster bubble have a love affair with the racist apartheid state, just like they did with another now thankfully defunct racist apartheid state not so long ago, doesnt mean that is widely shared.

Corbyn's view on Islamic terrorism is also a popular one - that rather than fawning and scraping before the biggest sponsors of terrorism and the cancer of salafi extremism in the world at the GCC, we should be doing what we can to slice off their insidious global tentacles at source.

Irish republicanism is essentially an irrelevance in the second decade of the 21st century, and his views that a peace deal would require the involvement of all parties proved 100% correct.

SeanT said:

Roger said:

SeanT said:

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

AlsoIndigo said:

.

Jonathan said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Hate Speech is simply speech one strongly dislikes.

If you ar

Preciions, which is why no-platforming is idiotic.

No one is silencing them. They can arrange their own meetings etc. No one should be forced to give them a platform or promote their views.

A fine line.

There is nssociates.

Quite. His blustering performance on Question Time was the beginning of the end for Nick Griffin. His party went into freefall soon after.

If Milo has horrible views (I'm not sure he does, I think he's more of a provocateur) then let him speak, and let him be revealed as the Nazi-boy he is. Or not.

Rioting to stop him speaking, and burning down trees, and punching and pepperspraying those who came to hear him speak is just ridiculous. And depressing.

It really is. Depressing and stupid. I don't know this Milo person very well, but I suspect he is just another wind-up-the-lefties merchant who only gets attention because he is good at winding up a certain kind of lefty. If he was ignored he would probably disappear very quickly indeed.

If you really want to be depressed by the dreadful safe-spacing mess into which American academe is descending, read this, written by an actual Ivy League student

http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/01/james-fisher-privelege-does-not-exist-to-white-penn-professors

And here is Milo, by the way - to give you a sense. He has said some provocative stuff (unlike in this clip) but he ain't the Gestapo

https://twitter.com/sjw_nonsense/status/824894329818734593

A slightly more typical example. Note his personal bodyguards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHZBGidQcEs

Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.

It's all very prejudicial. Lots of twisting facts. '100,000,000 people live in countries where homosexuality is a crime and they're ALL Muslim'. Well there might be 100,000.000 people who live in Muslim countries where homosexuality is illegal but there are many Christian countries where it's illegal too . His Rochdale story is also misleading if you don't know the facts. It implies 14.000 girls were ceremoniously lined up to be raped.

But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.

SeanT said:

Macron is just a boring europhile centrist, isn't he? (I confess my knowledge of the more obscure candidates is poor)

Why would the French vote for another version of Hollande??

No, he's he a charismatic europhile centrist. Think Blair.

Rough guide (others may disagree):

Le Pen: nationalist with more ability to tack on issues than her dad had
Fillon: grey hardline conservative, mildly Europe-friendly
Macron: as above
Hamon: populist charismatic leftist with hard-to-achieve policies (think Syriza)
Melanchon: classic leftist, not sure what his views on Europe are

Hollande's approach - classic social democracy with some sops to the left - was Valls' approach. He lost.

If Fillon fades because of alleged personal issues, voters can choose between ultra-nationalism (most French still say ugh), Syriza-style populism (oo-er), communist-leaning leftism (um, it's 2017), and centrism. That's why Macron is now favourite.

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

logical_song said:

SeanT said:

Trump's continued, and highly entertaining, volatility (or insanity, if you prefer) just underlines what an incredible job TMay did in Washington.

Most leaders can't have a ten minute phone call with the POTUS, without him threatening to invade their country and drop neutron bombs on their favourite national parks. TMay went into the crazy lion's den, got feted and cheered, did an actual live press conference without a hitch, and escaped with nothing but a mildly embarrassing shot of some hand holding.

Whatever your politics, she did very very well. She rises in my estimation daily.

It's easy to get on well with Trump, just tell him he's great.

Yes. But beyond the necessary flattery of a narcissist, May also managed to get Trump to 1. commit to NATO, and 2. confess he would let his Def Sec choose whether or not to torture people (i.e. not)

I know she's not flavour of the month amongst Remainers, but looking back TMay handled Trump exceedingly well, in very tricky circumstances. Perhaps he responds to authoritative women better than other men, who he sees as rivals. That might be especially true if the women have a British accent.

Trump's commitment to NATO is untested, to say the least. As for torture - probably best to wait and see. What we know for sure is that Trump says one thing and does another. But, you are right, May is tied to him keeping his word.

If you can just try and get beyond your tiresome partisanship, and Remainery whingeing, you have to admit - in terms of the job she had to do in DC - TMay did jolly well, as every day since has proved. Trump is barking. She made him appear sane, and got away largely without embarrassment. 9/10 for the lady.

As for the ongoing politics, yes, we shall see.

a golden carriage ride down the Mall.

Oh I doubt he's getting that - just a drive from the back of the Palace to the front, just like George Bush.....

rcs1000 said:

I've been thinking about the Trump Border Tax Adjustment (BTA), and what it means for the Canadian oil & gas industry.

To recap, under the BTA, companies can recoup domestic costs against tax, but not imports.

Now, imagine you are an oil refiner. Typically you buy oil (and I'm simplifying here, but not much), for $50, spend $5 to convert it diesel, gasoline, etc., and sell it for $60, earning a $5 profit on which you pay roughly $1.50 of tax.

If a refiner buys a barrel of Canadian oil, paying $50, it will not be able to offset that against tax. The result is that its tax bill will be $15.00 + $1.50, or $16.50.

The US produces about 9m barrels of oil per day, and consumes about 17m.

Canada has no meaningful ability to sell crude oil (beyond a small amount from the off-shore fields of White Rose, Hibernian, etc.) to customers other than the US. 99% of its oil exports have exactly one market; and those barrels (which are already some of the most expensive to produce in the world) are just worth $15 less to a US refiner.

I think it's fair to say that Canada would regard the imposition of a BTA to be an extremely hostile act.

I think we have to assume that it will be more sophisticated than that (particularly as regards import of raw materials); otherwise the economically rational thing to do in this case is move the refinery north of the Canadian border. But you're right, as currently stated that would seem to be how the mechanism would work.

FrancisUrquhart said:

PlatoSaid said:

Ah, explains the phone call with Turnball

Donald J Trump
Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!

I can see why Trump is pissed about this. Obama signed the US up to potentially excepting people currently located on Manus Island and Nauru in detention centres only in November.

Most of the people are Iranian. So for Trump that is politically terrible if on one hand he is saying there is a ban, sorry temporary pause, on all Iranians and on the other hand expecting to take in a load of Iranians that Australia won't deal with.

That may be so, but normally a president takes advice and considers that sort of thing before signing an executive order or making a policy statement.

Animal_pb said:

rcs1000 said:

I've been thinking about the Trump Border Tax Adjustment (BTA), and what it means for the Canadian oil & gas industry.

To recap, under the BTA, companies can recoup domestic costs against tax, but not imports.

Now, imagine you are an oil refiner. Typically you buy oil (and I'm simplifying here, but not much), for $50, spend $5 to convert it diesel, gasoline, etc., and sell it for $60, earning a $5 profit on which you pay roughly $1.50 of tax.

If a refiner buys a barrel of Canadian oil, paying $50, it will not be able to offset that against tax. The result is that its tax bill will be $15.00 + $1.50, or $16.50.

The US produces about 9m barrels of oil per day, and consumes about 17m.

Canada has no meaningful ability to sell crude oil (beyond a small amount from the off-shore fields of White Rose, Hibernian, etc.) to customers other than the US. 99% of its oil exports have exactly one market; and those barrels (which are already some of the most expensive to produce in the world) are just worth $15 less to a US refiner.

I think it's fair to say that Canada would regard the imposition of a BTA to be an extremely hostile act.

I think we have to assume that it will be more sophisticated than that (particularly as regards import of raw materials); otherwise the economically rational thing to do in this case is move the refinery north of the Canadian border. But you're right, as currently stated that would seem to be how the mechanism would work.

There will be an absolute orgy of special pleading. Will raw materials be exempt? Or will it only be for raw materials that the US doesn't produce in scale? What about businesses with long-term contracts that will suddenly become unprofitable?

And then there's reflexivity: the fact that prices will adjust to maintain the balance of supply and demand. (Essentially, could the US dollar simply rise 15% to completely eradicate the effects of the BTA?)

Diane Abbott hours before her sudden onset flu:

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/827097905483960320

weejonnie said:

rkrkrk said:

malcolmg said:

Tykejohnno said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Tykejohnno said:

The_Apocalypse said:

You have to really side-eye Trudeau on breaking his promise in regard to electoral reform. And I'm someone who actually likes him.

I bet you liked Blair.

For most of his time as PM I was a kid. But generally I grew up in anti-Blair household and so those views filtered down to me.

I apologise then.

Well done Tyke, not many on here would do same

I think there should be an award for 2017... Poster who apologised when wrong the most often.

Is that the person who apologised most often when wrong or was wrong most often and apologised?

I think the second one. Easier to monitor!
I'm sure we are all wrong enough times to have a shot at the award which will likely be won by someone with three or possibly four apologies!

SeanT said:

Roger said:

SeanT said:

Roger said:

SeanT said:

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

AlsoIndigo said:

.

Jonathan said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Hate Speech is simply speech one strongly dislikes.

If you ar

A fine line.

There is nssociates.

Quite. epressing.

If you

https://twitter.com/sjw_nonsense/status/824894329818734593

A slightly more typical example. Note his personal bodyguards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHZBGidQcEs

Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.

But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.

No, he's pointing out, very bluntly, that some aspects of the Muslim faith, as practised in dozens of countries, and eagerly applauded by millions of Muslims, are disgusting and vile. Like killing gays. And they are.

So in this example it isn't hate speech, it's simply uncomfortable facts that some Muslims, and their lefty apologists, just don't want to hear.

If they don't like what he says, let them walk out of the auditorium, or stage their own debates, let them challenge his arguments with their own. Instead they burn down buildings and knock members of the audience unconscious. Brilliant.

The Left is devouring itself with this mad, violent, identity politics bullshit. If this madness continues, someone even WORSE than Trump will come along, and duly get elected.

There was a documentary some years ago about Oswald Mosely's march through the East End. It interviewd Lefties and Commies who stood up to the fascists many of whom were beaten up by a very partisan police force.

But they were now the 'Heroes of Cable Street' who had fought the fascists on behalf of their Jewish neigbours.

The right-wing on on a run just now but we'll have to wait a few years before we start selecting heroes and villains.

rcs1000 said:

Animal_pb said:

rcs1000 said:

I've been thinking about the Trump Border Tax Adjustment (BTA), and what it means for the Canadian oil & gas industry.

To recap, under the BTA, companies can recoup domestic costs against tax, but not imports.

Now, imagine you are an oil refiner. Typically you buy oil (and I'm simplifying here, but not much), for $50, spend $5 to convert it diesel, gasoline, etc., and sell it for $60, earning a $5 profit on which you pay roughly $1.50 of tax.

If a refiner buys a barrel of Canadian oil, paying $50, it will not be able to offset that against tax. The result is that its tax bill will be $15.00 + $1.50, or $16.50.

The US produces about 9m barrels of oil per day, and consumes about 17m.

Canada has no meaningful ability to sell crude oil (beyond a small amount from the off-shore fields of White Rose, Hibernian, etc.) to customers other than the US. 99% of its oil exports have exactly one market; and those barrels (which are already some of the most expensive to produce in the world) are just worth $15 less to a US refiner.

I think it's fair to say that Canada would regard the imposition of a BTA to be an extremely hostile act.

I think we have to assume that it will be more sophisticated than that (particularly as regards import of raw materials); otherwise the economically rational thing to do in this case is move the refinery north of the Canadian border. But you're right, as currently stated that would seem to be how the mechanism would work.

There will be an absolute orgy of special pleading. Will raw materials be exempt? Or will it only be for raw materials that the US doesn't produce in scale? What about businesses with long-term contracts that will suddenly become unprofitable?

And then there's reflexivity: the fact that prices will adjust to maintain the balance of supply and demand. (Essentially, could the US dollar simply rise 15% to completely eradicate the effects of the BTA?)

There will be an absolute orgy of special pleading.

Of course there will. Then again, that might be a feature rather than a bug, with a grifter in the White House.

CarlottaVance said:

James Forsyth:
It is a striking feature of British politics that we care more about statements by the US President than those of the leaders of the countries with whom we have been in ‘ever closer union’ for 40-odd years.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/what-no-10-has-learned-about-dealing-with-the-donald/

And our delusion is that we think this makes us unique within Europe rather than simply being a reflection of American power combined with the fact that we share a language. The truth is that every country in Europe cares more about statements by the US President than those of the leader of a randomly chosen European neighbour.

SeanT said:

Roger said:

SeanT said:

Roger said:

SeanT said:

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

AlsoIndigo said:

.

Jonathan said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Hate Speech is simply speech one strongly dislikes.

If you ar

Preciions, which is why no-platforming is idiotic.

No one is silencing them. They can arrange their own meetings etc. No one should be forced to give them a platform or promote their views.

A fine line.

There is nssociates.

Quite. His blusteri. And depressing.

It realfty. If he was ignored he would probably disappear very quickly indeed.

If you
https://twitter.com/sjw_nonsense/status/824894329818734593

A slightly more typical example. Note his personal bodyguards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHZBGidQcEs

Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.

It's all very prejudicial. Lots of twisting facts. '100,000,000 people live in countries where homosexuality is a crime and they're ALL Muslim'. Well there might be 100,000.000 people who live in Muslim countries where homosexuality is illegal but there are many Christian countries where it's illegal too . d.

But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.

As for your comment about "many Christian countries where homosexuality is illegal", that's simply not true. There's a handful left, and their laws are often notably lenient, or unenforced

And, more often than not it's a hang over of (usually British) colonial legislation.....

dr_spyn said:

enjoy.

https://twitter.com/newdawn1997/status/826757806447534081

Hmm

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/827107069551587328

dr_spyn said:

enjoy.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/827104925704474624

I met Theresa May in 2002 - and asked her a question at Spring Forum) - and that's exactly what I found her to be like. Put me right off her, and I almost wrote her off.

But, then again, Margaret Thatcher was also fairly conformist and anodyne until she took the leadership.

Perhaps ambitious female politicians just like to keep their powder dry? (two points of evidence..)

NEW THREAD

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2 mins2 minutes ago

If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Man with finger on the Scotch pulse.

https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/827068741871603712

https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/827053185806266368

He certainly is, latest Panel base has No ahead by 8% in any indyref2 i.e. no change from final 2014 polls

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Man with finger on the Scotch pulse.

https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/827068741871603712

https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/827053185806266368

He certainly is, latest Panel base has No ahead by 8% in any indyref2 i.e. no change from final 2014 polls

So only needs change just above MOE for YES victory, good starting point given it was 30% last time.