politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf’s afternoon cartoon on the Brexit talks

Danny565 said:

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/877266894352523264

Great trolling.

I was reading those Vice rental stories and they don't put the issue nearly as well as kyf. Despite what I said earlier, I've lived in places not very different to some of those, and frankly one gets used to it. But the combination with the places being really expensive is the killer, not that they're a bit short of privacy or cupboard space or the shower doesn't have a wall attachment.

MaxPB said:

Bobajob_PB said:

another_richard said:

kyf_100 said:

another_richard said:

kyf_100 said:

This weekly column is quite illuminating and very well written.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/topic/london-rental-opportunity-of-the-week

It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.

Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.

I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.

But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.

Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.

The way out is to leave.

Your answer to everything. Leave EU, and turn London into Mansfield.

The Paleo Tory Vision for Britain.

I think he meant for people unable to buy, they would end up leaving the country. Which has been happening in my experience. Quite a few of my friends are scattered across the world.

Yup. Dubai, Doha, Amsterdam, Berlin, even Shanghai are a few places I've lost friends to in recent years.

The thing is, people keep on coming back from those places, still broke, sort-of-culture-shocked, and still not able to buy a place of their own or feel secure enough to start a family.

Benpointer said:

nigel4england said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Newsnight:

Looks like Arlene Foster has pretty cosy ties to the UDA.

No surrender!

You're kidding me.

Next thing you will be telling us is that Gerry Adams has close ties to the IRA

But Gerry Adams is not about to be the tail wagging the government is he.

Not a million to one!

Benpointer said:

nigel4england said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Newsnight:

Looks like Arlene Foster has pretty cosy ties to the UDA.

No surrender!

You're kidding me.

Next thing you will be telling us is that Gerry Adams has close ties to the IRA

But Gerry Adams is not about to be the tail wagging the government is he.

He's the tail wagging Leo Varadkar who is the tail wagging the EU. We'll have an interesting negotiation by proxy in Brussels.

Weather could hit 35 degrees tomorrow in some parts of the south-east.

Alice_Aforethought said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pong said:

Alice_Aforethought said:

Yorkcity said:

VAT is currently on extensions to houses .New housing is VAT free maybe we should put VAT on new houses that are built with 4 bedrooms or over , to encourage smaller builds for first time buyers.

Waive CGT on property sold to tenants in residence.

Incentivises landlords to sell and indeed give a discount, but only to the tenants. Sell to another landlord and you pay CGT.

Sorted.

Your solution to the problem is to give a tax incentive to landlords if they sell?

Seriously?

Landlords who sell their property to a tenant taking a property out of the landlord market and into the home ownership market. Sounds like an ingenious solution actually, what's wrong with that?

You want to disincentivise landlords from selling to tenants?

Shuffling deckchairs.

Eh?

Do you want landlords to sell up to FTBs or don't you?

Or do you just envy and hate landlords?

Indeed I would have thought that former tenants who now own their own home would be quite pleased with the "shuffled deckchair" no matter how condescending some may want to be. They may view owning their own home as quite an important deckchair to them.

Mortimer said:

edmundintokyo said:

Barnesian said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

chloe said:

We need to build millions of homes and no party had any serious answer to the housing crisis at the recent election. We cannot rely on S106 planning gain and building on brownfield land or any of the other tinkering around the edges that the parties have announced to date. We need central government and councils to build homes in addition to the private developers and Registered Providers and we need to build on green belt land.

No we don't.

We need nurses homes on NHS land, police and firemens homes like we used to have, and "convents" for single mothers - not necessarily religious but the same type of regime.

For any proposal that's supposed to reduce shortages you have to ask, "does this use land (or sky) that would already have had residential planning permission, or is it newly-granted planning permission".

If it's already got planning permission then it won't help: Capitalism currently has no problem building houses if the government will allow them to do it. The government is building where the private sector would have built anyway.

If it hasn't, and the arm of the government that wants the house built is over-riding the various other branches of the government that want to stop houses being built, it can just do that part, which will solve the entire problem.

Edmund, with all due respect, the housing/land market is broken and the system entirely in the hands of the house builders. The shortage is not due to a lack of government will.

This is the thing about failed command economies, there are always scapegoats: X is hoarding, y is profiteering. Housebuilders, private landlords, evil foreign tax-evaders, there's always someone to blame when a central-planning system predictably fails.

There are of course parts of the government who know how much damage the policy is causing and want to stop banning people from building on basically all the land and sky in the country, but they've never had the clout to change it.

foxinsoxuk said:

The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).

The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.

Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.

There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.

Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.

The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?

Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.

MaxPB said:

619 said:

Yup. People have a go at Corbyn, but he talked about this early and genuinely seems to want to try and sort it out.

Tories talk a good game but do fuck all because all their voters (And some of their MPs) are landlords

Rubbish, there are about 1m private landlords in the UK, the Tories just got 13m votes. The danger (for Labour) is that if we manage to fix the market we stand to gain millions of votes from the new home owners and lose a few hundred thousand landlords who don't have anywhere else to go. Labour will be the biggest loser from increasing home ownership, which is why their policy is about increasing social rent and trapping people in poor quality housing and public sector dependency.

There are a lot of votes to gain and very few to lose. About four times as many private tenants as there are landlords, if memory serves. And 1m private landlords are hardly likely to suddenly enthusiastically embrace Corbynism if the Tories put the screws on them just a little bit.

Best way forward now is to increase supply, building starter homes where they're actually needed.
Couple that with increasing taxes on BTL landlords slowly, an escalator that causes more and more of them to drop out of the market.
Gradually introduce new laws severely curtailing BTL mortgages.
Make 3 year secure tenancies the default.
Ruthlessly prosecute any landlord putting sub-standard housing on the market. Keelhaul a few of 'em. Make a public example out of them.

I haven't put limiting immigration on the table because that creates other economic problems, particularly in the short run. But it's undeniably a contributing factor - one my Corbynista mates ignore when I mention that maybe it plays a part in why they're living 8 to a flat.

Thatcher understood that home ownership created Conservative voters. But this goes far beyond party lines, it's about creating communities with cohesion, it's about ensuring that our young are able to put down roots and start families, it's about ensuring people have a stake in society and that there is some kind of social mobility. So let's build a hell of a lot more social housing too. People are utterly rootless - moving from place to place, year to year. It's a blight on society.

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).

The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.

Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.

There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.

Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.

The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?

Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.

Oh yes - I can see that garnering a few votes for the Tories in Nimbyshire.

isam said:

Charles said:

isam said:

Charles said:

isam said:

Dadge said:

isam said:

It seems that in order to get cheap Labour into the country en masse, the powers that be were prepared to turn a blind eye to the ridiculous housing conditions these pawns in the game had to live in. Lord knows how many died at Grenfell or how many houses the public sector will have to build with our money to eventually house them.

The pressure on property in London has become so immense in the last few years that the place has become almost unliveable.

I think Corbyn's attitudes to the EU and FoM are more reasonable than those of many in the Tory party. He appreciates the value of immigration and immigrants to the economy, but wants an end to the driving down of wages and living standards. Many middle-class people have objected to Ukip etc. in a very black-and-white fashion because they don't want to be accused of xenophobia, but have they seen the conditions a lot of immigrants live in? Countries like Britain shouldn't be competing with third-world countries for standard of living.

Couldn't agree more. The secret behind all great fortune is a crime forgotten, as Balzac probably didn't say

*ahem*

South Sea Bubble

Well yes... I think Mike Atherton devotes a chapter in his book 'Gambling' to that

If you were to google it together with my surname there some very interesting academic research on our investment strategy

Artificially lifting the market?

No - just very disciplined trading (both on the way up and down) with good insight into trading flows

JonnyJimmy said:

Is there any chance that the delay in the MayDUP deal is to increase the drama, and so make May look like someone who can pull a deal out of a near crisis?

Good point. If a deal with the DUP is done, how long before we hear about anonymous briefings from 'hitherto critical Tory MPs' to the effect of 'My, my, I never thought Theresa had it in her. If she can forge this deal with the DUP then that's bodes extremely well for what she can do with the EU. "Strong and Stable" indeed!'

I'll give it about six seconds.

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).

The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.

Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.

There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.

Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.

The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?

Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.

The biggest problem is not planning permissions or the lack of land. It is land banking by the developers.

The Guardian gets it.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/31/britain-land-housing-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking

600,000 plots of land with planning permission that they won't build on.

To quote:

"Getting planning permission isn’t the issue: England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes that are started."

Maybe this is a use for that LVT everyone keeps talking about. If the developers were forced to pay tax on the value of the and they are sitting on they would start thinking about building on it soon enough.

foxinsoxuk said:

MaxPB said:

619 said:

kyf_100 said:

another_richard said:

kyf_100 said:

This weekly column is quite illuminating and very well written.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/topic/london-rental-opportunity-of-the-week

It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.

Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.

I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.

But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.

Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.

Yup. People have a go at Corbyn, but he talked about this early and genuinely seems to want to try and sort it out.

Tories talk a good game but do fuck all because all their voters (And some of their MPs) are landlords

Rubbish, there are about 1m private landlords in the UK, the Tories just got 13m votes. The danger (for Labour) is that if we manage to fix the market we stand to gain millions of votes from the new home owners and lose a few hundred thousand landlords who don't have anywhere else to go. Labour will be the biggest loser from increasing home ownership, which is why their policy is about increasing social rent and trapping people in poor quality housing and public sector dependency.

The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).

The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.

Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.

Says the middle class landlord. You are the enemy and I can't wait until the country realises what a parasite you and your lot are.

nigel4england said:

AndyJS said:

Weather could hit 35 degrees tomorrow in some parts of the south-east.

I'm going to Italy for a week, first time I have ever been abroad on holiday and hoped it is cooler than here!

I take it that geography wasn't your best subject.

Bobajob_PB said:

another_richard said:

kyf_100 said:

another_richard said:

kyf_100 said:

This weekly column is quite illuminating and very well written.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/topic/london-rental-opportunity-of-the-week

It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.

Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.

I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.

But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.

Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.

The way out is to leave.

Your answer to everything. Leave EU, and turn London into Mansfield.

The Paleo Tory Vision for Britain.

You seem very insecure Bob - are you a renter yourself or were you fortunate to buy in London before it became too expensive for you. Whatever, your London lifestyle is dependent upon the exploitation of inequality. I'd feel ashamed if it was me. Perhaps you do too and that's why you're so touchy on this issue.

I prefer a country where the person on average wages can afford to buy the average house.

That seems to be a vision you don't share.

Though your hostility towards places where there isn't such inequality and exploitation and where a nurse can own a house instead of being dependent upon food-banks is amusing.

The London Labour vision for Britain - shanty towns in suburbia and nurses dependent upon food-banks.

Monksfield said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).

The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.

Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.

There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.

Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.

The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?

Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.

The biggest problem is not planning permissions or the lack of land. It is land banking by the developers.

The Guardian gets it.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/31/britain-land-housing-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking

600,000 plots of land with planning permission that they won't build on.

To quote:

"Getting planning permission isn’t the issue: England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes that are started."

Maybe this is a use for that LVT everyone keeps talking about. If the developers were forced to pay tax on the value of the and they are sitting on they would start thinking about building on it soon enough.

The point is that it is not in the housebuilders interests to build houses any faster than they can sell them. They of all people do not want to oversupply the market.

Which is why new supply of housing to buy must come from private landlords leaving the property market. The government must look at ways to make renting out existing property unprofitable. We need to encourage develop/build to let, and gut buy to let.

SeanT said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/877278053059186689

Interesting approach by The Mail. The Right's take on the Grenfell disaster hasn't been difficult to discern so far: it's all immigration's fault for putting third-world shanty towns in our midst. So it's surprising that The Mail has gone off script and given a voice to the victims (albeit through an indirect pop at Corbyn). What's Dacre playing at?

I've just been to a supper party in W10, one street from Grenfell Tower.

Oh my word, I confess I had no idea. The atmos there is incredible. Subdued, angry, mutinous, achingly sad. Whole streets still closed off, ambulances and police everywhere - still. Schools closed because so many kids are dead.

Sobering. Sobering. Sobering.

That's hardly a surprise.

MaxPB said:

Monksfield said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The Landlords are not the enemy, though there is need for regulation (Rachman was active more than 50 years ago, and overcrowded slums were familiar to both Orwell and Dickens).

The other side of the poor functioning of the housing market is underoccupancy, whether second homes or granny still living in a 4 bed family home.

Short of nationalising housing to be redistributed by the local Soviets, there is no easy solution. The division of housing is just one of many aspects of social inequality.

There is a easy solution: deregulation and the free market.

Let people build homes and given how expensive homes are there will be plenty built. Increasing supply will reduce demand. It is basic first day economics.

The issue is the planning restrictions that prevent homes getting built. If a farmer wants to convert acres of his land into new housing with nice gardens etc rather than farming just in order to get his Common Agricultural Policy subsidies is that really worse because its greenfield developments than slumming more and more people into existing cramped brownfield ones?

Abolish or greatly reform the greenbelt and we could start a construction boom and end our housing problems relatively quickly.

The biggest problem is not planning permissions or the lack of land. It is land banking by the developers.

The Guardian gets it.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/31/britain-land-housing-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking

600,000 plots of land with planning permission that they won't build on.

To quote:

"Getting planning permission isn’t the issue: England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes that are started."

Maybe this is a use for that LVT everyone keeps talking about. If the developers were forced to pay tax on the value of the and they are sitting on they would start thinking about building on it soon enough.

The point is that it is not in the housebuilders interests to build houses any faster than they can sell them. They of all people do not want to oversupply the market.

Which is why new supply of housing to buy must come from private landlords leaving the property market. The government must look at ways to make renting out existing property unprofitable. We need to encourage develop/build to let, and gut buy to let.

But it is not new supply. If those houses already have people living in them then simply moving them from rented to owned status does nothing at all to increase the number of properties available for people to live in.

SeanT said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/877278053059186689

Interesting approach by The Mail. The Right's take on the Grenfell disaster hasn't been difficult to discern so far: it's all immigration's fault for putting third-world shanty towns in our midst. So it's surprising that The Mail has gone off script and given a voice to the victims (albeit through an indirect pop at Corbyn). What's Dacre playing at?

I've just been to a supper party in W10, one street from Grenfell Tower.

Oh my word, I confess I had no idea. The atmos there is incredible. Subdued, angry, mutinous, achingly sad. Whole streets still closed off, ambulances and police everywhere - still. Schools closed because so many kids are dead.

Sobering. Sobering. Sobering.

Snap, sort of.

My Mum and I had a little walk around from Ladbroke Grove to Latimer Road this afternoon. Very sad to see the tower charred black from so close, and the floral and poster tributes. So touching and so morbid in a way. I actually felt a little uncomfortable to be honest, but I did listen (among others) to a few residents talking about their experiences and fears.

The consensus on the DUP is that they simply will not vote against the queens speech because they can't be seen to accept Corbyn. But consensus has been proved wrong so often recently, what if we ignore that bit of consensus and then look at the options?

The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?

If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?

If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?

If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?

If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.

What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?

I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.

Paristonda said:

The consensus on the DUP is that they simply will not vote against the queens speech because they can't be seen to accept Corbyn. But consensus has been proved wrong so often recently, what if we ignore that bit of consensus and then look at the options?

The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?

If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?

If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?

If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?

If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.

What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?

I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.

I wonder what the DUP's voters think about Corbyn's attitude on the IRA/Sinn Fein.

Richard_Tyndall said:

But it is not new supply. If those houses already have people living in them then simply moving them from rented to owned status does nothing at all to increase the number of properties available for people to live in.

It's new supply for (prospective) owner occupiers. Remember we're not talking about a situation where a private landlord sells to some other kind of investor, primary the buyers would be owner occupiers, either moving up the chain or getting on the ladder. The demand among 25-45 year olds is for homes to buy so they can live in them where that supply comes from is irrelevant. When they buy their own home they reduce demand in the rental sector.

Monksfield said:

another_richard said:

Bobajob_PB said:

another_richard said:

kyf_100 said:

another_richard said:

kyf_100 said:

This weekly column is quite illuminating and very well written.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/topic/london-rental-opportunity-of-the-week

It's not just illegal immigrants being crammed into substandard accommodation, its our own kids and recent, debt-laden grads. No wonder they're all voting Labour.

Brilliant and some really good writing in those articles.

I imagine it's how SeanT would write, if he was 25, living in an 8 person house share, and couldn't get laid.

But seriously, the anger is there and it's real. The frustration of feeling like you're paying half your salary to a landlord forever and ever, with no way of getting out of it, when in fact a mortgage would be cheaper, but you'll never get a mortgage, even though you pay more than that every month. It feels like you're the working class and there's this rentier class above you (whose mortgage YOU are paying) and you will never, ever be part of that, unless you have rich parents, which just makes you even angrier.

Now the young have woken up, the Tories will be out of power a long, long time unless they do something about this. If they don't, people ARE going to vote for full on socialism. Because the housing market effectively ends any kind of class mobility.

The way out is to leave.

Your answer to everything. Leave EU, and turn London into Mansfield.

The Paleo Tory Vision for Britain.

You seem very insecure Bob - are you a renter yourself or were you fortunate to buy in London before it became too expensive for you. Whatever, your London lifestyle is dependent upon the exploitation of inequality. I'd feel ashamed if it was me. Perhaps you do too and that's why you're so touchy on this issue.

I prefer a country where the person on average wages can afford to buy the average house.

That seems to be a vision you don't share.

Though your hostility towards places where there isn't such inequality and exploitation and where a nurse can own a house instead of being dependent upon food-banks is amusing.

The London Labour vision for Britain - shanty towns in suburbia and nurses dependent upon food-banks.

You do talk a load of shite. This sounds closer to the vision you excite over on a regular basis than anything. The one where robots do all the work while the proles press their noses against the glass from the outside.

That's very impressive abuse though I'm not sure what it means.

I'll put you down as someone who doesn't think the average person being able to afford the average house is a good thing.

Paristonda said:

The consensus on the DUP is that they simply will not vote against the queens speech because they can't be seen to accept Corbyn. But consensus has been proved wrong so often recently, what if we ignore that bit of consensus and then look at the options?

The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?

If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?

If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?

If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?

If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.

What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?

I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.

Because Corbyn is the worst little weed, a pathetic little cheerleader from a distance who wouldn't fight for shit.

Those who won't get their hands dirty whilst shouting the odds from across the water are seen as being as low as they come. Thats how many people think over here.

RobD said:

Paristonda said:

The consensus on the DUP is that they simply will not vote against the queens speech because they can't be seen to accept Corbyn. But consensus has been proved wrong so often recently, what if we ignore that bit of consensus and then look at the options?

The DUP already worked with Sinn Fein in NI. If they can stomach Martin McGuinness, how can Corbyn be worse?

If the Tories look to be an unpopular government option at the moment, how would the DUP benefit from propping it up?

If the Tories are unwilling to throw money at the DUP, what incentive is there for the DUP to back the Tories?

If the DUP political positions are often closer to Labour on economics, why would their voters appreciate such a move, unless we are assuming that NI voters are incapable of voting based on things like the economy, and can only vote on flag waving concepts?

If the DUP said they would vote against a Corbyn queen speech as well as a tory one - they couldn't be accused of propping up Corbyn anyway - there would be another election, which may well result in the best result for the DUP - a hung parliament with the 2 parties so close they can play them off against each other.

What if the tories and the DUP call each other's bluffs? Neither can afford to back down in front of the other so it results in a further election?

I'm not saying these are likely options, but too much analysis of the current QS situation is done through the consensus sacred truth of "the DUP will never do anything to let Corbyn see power". I see no reason why this sacred truth is more long lasting than the many other sacred truths discredited recently.

I wonder what the DUP's voters think about Corbyn's attitude on the IRA/Sinn Fein.

I would have thought similar to the hatred of Sinn Fein themselves (and vice versa), but they have worked with them in the NI assembly. But just because the voters have gone for the more hardline parties doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are ever more obsessed about unionism/republicanism - those people used to vote UUP/SDLP, they haven't been radicalised, just forced to 'get off the fence'.

I'm just back from the pub with a friend of mine who grew up on the Lancaster West housing estate by Grenfell Tower. My mate is a real "boy done good", who I met at Cambridge and who had a glittering career at investment banks and hedge funds.

Anyway, I asked if he'd known anyone who lived in Grenfell Tower and he said that one of his friends from school had lived in there when he was younger. He then showed me the messages from his phone:

Matt (my friend): Hey I heard about the fire, are you OK?
Nick: Don't worry bruv, I got an alibi

(I should add that Nick no longer lives in the tower, and is a criminal barrister. But I thought it was such a spectacular bit of gallows humour that it was worth sharing.)

Oil price is dropping like a stone at the moment. Does the situation in the Gulf have anything to do with it?

https://www.bloomberg.com/energy

AndyJS said:

Oil price is dropping like a stone at the moment. Does the situation in the Gulf have anything to do with it?

https://www.bloomberg.com/energy

I'm sure it plays a role, but the ultimate cause is that there are now sources of oil in the world that are economic at sub $50/barrel.

RobD said:

Paristonda said:

RobD said:

I wonder what the DUP's voters think about Corbyn's attitude on the IRA/Sinn Fein.

I would have thought similar to the hatred of Sinn Fein themselves (and vice versa), but they have worked with them in the NI assembly. But just because the voters have gone for the more hardline parties doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are ever more obsessed about unionism/republicanism - those people used to vote UUP/SDLP, they haven't been radicalised, just forced to 'get off the fence'.

Isn't that because they have to work with them in the assembly, it's designed that way.

Sure, but formal rules or not, if you have to do a deal with Sinn Fein, you must be able to put your hatred of them to one side to be able to do it (and to be fair we have seen throughout the years that this has often proved too difficult with the shutdowns of the assembly). @Y0kel 's response to me raises the point that Corbyn being seen as a cheerleader from afar is more toxic than getting involved in the fighting itself, which I can understand.

Most likely, the DUP will vote the QS, or at least abstain. Corbyn probably is too toxic. But it just seems to me that too many non-empirical assumptions are being made to be so sure about it.

If @Sunil_Prasannan is still around this evening.
http://secretldn.com/2017/06/take-ride-abandoned-underground-train-track/

Bobajob_PB said:

another_richard said:

Bobajob_PB said:

another_richard said:

The way out is to leave.

Your answer to everything. Leave EU, and turn London into Mansfield.

The Paleo Tory Vision for Britain.

You seem very insecure Bob - are you a renter yourself or were you fortunate to buy in London before it became too expensive for you. Whatever, your London lifestyle is dependent upon the exploitation of inequality. I'd feel ashamed if it was me. Perhaps you do too and that's why you're so touchy on this issue.

I prefer a country where the person on average wages can afford to buy the average house.

That seems to be a vision you don't share.

Though your hostility towards places where there isn't such inequality and exploitation and where a nurse can own a house instead of being dependent upon food-banks is amusing.

The London Labour vision for Britain - shanty towns in suburbia and nurses dependent upon food-banks.

I own a four bedroom house in London.

I'll ignore your daft comments and ask why we have generation paying the similar in rent as my wife & I do in mortgage fees. The changes to the borrowing rules have been a disaster as saving for a deposit is impossible for many. I started out on a 100% mortgage. My equity is now approaching 50%.

Mansfieldisation is not, however, the answer.

A genuine well done from me.

There's nothing wrong with people having to provide a deposit when buying a house and the ways they were avoided previously contributed to the dangers of negative equity, repossession and banks crashes.

The problem is that while a 5% deposit on a £100k is affordable, a 5% deposit on a £500,000 house isn't.

And the answer isn't for the government to start offering subsidies and guarantees - those only encourage even higher prices - but for the supply of housing to be increased ie increased house building.

Which is something I would have thought difficult in a constrained environment such as London, though RCS predicts imminent large scale price reductions and his views are not to be taken lightly.

For the rest of the country then Mansfieldisation is the answer - affordable housing by building enough so that the prices drop. In particular build houses in places where the communications are good and improve broadband speeds as well.

And with that good night.

PaulM said:

Any chance the Tories can put these DUPers on the Brexit negotiating team ?

As they favour a soft border with Ireland with all that entails in respect of freedom of movement, customs union and so on it is to be hoped they replace some of the nut jobs and fruit loons in the Conservative ranks ASAP.

isam said:

NickPalmer said:

Monksfield said:

Floater said:

Here we go again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4622952/Explosion-reported-Brussels-central-station.html

Suspected perp shot

I'm in Brussels at the moment - passed through Brussels Centre station a couple of hours ago and was surprised to meet a tourist later who said that her train hadn't stopped there (we're in Nord) and she'd heard an explosion and a shot. The story has got round now and people are discussing it with mild concern, much as one would a traffic accident - I think the terrorists are getting diminishing returns in the shock-horror department, especially when nobody appears to have been hurt except the supposed terrorist.

Part & parcel of city life now eh Nick? All a bit 'meh'
Lovely

Mustn't scare the horses eh

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/877204691851108353

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/877234140483121152

These tweets seem to have slipped by unreported but could signal something big. Open abandonment of the "China will contain them" approach - could Trump be gearing up for some sort of intervention?

The full report is well worth reading;

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/06/Wealth.pdf

Figure 18 on page 38 is bonkers.

This is the economic reality which explains the Corbyn vote. The 47 year olds (+ under) is where the pinch starts to be felt, getting progressively worse for each subsequent cohort.

For 26-31 year olds it's completely f*cking hopeless.

Basically, they aren't able to generate wealth in this economy like previous generations were.

They have pretty much no stake in the status quo.

That's social (and economic) dynamite.

nunu said:

A lot of posters in Ladbroke Grove saying the death toll is actually 150 not 79 as reported by the MSM.

The authorities need to provide honest numbers soon.

Are they only honest when provided by those not in authority then?

timmo said:

nunu said:

A lot of posters in Ladbroke Grove saying the death toll is actually 150 not 79 as reported by the MSM.

The authorities need to provide honest numbers soon.

Are they only honest when provided by those not in authority then?

Or Corbynista media:

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/20/is-dishonest-accounting-why-grenfell-official-death-toll-so-low/

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/21/video-42-dead-in-a-single-grenfell-room-still-think-theres-no-cover-up/

Still smarting over their 'D-notice' #fakenews......

nunu said:

timmo said:

nunu said:

A lot of posters in Ladbroke Grove saying the death toll is actually 150 not 79 as reported by the MSM.

The authorities need to provide honest numbers soon.

Are they only honest when provided by those not in authority then?

There is a lot of distrust of the authorities right now. Nobody belives the 79 figure.

I'll just say that for now.

Lots of #fakenews doing the rounds:

Victims of the Grenfell Tower fire are not being asked to move hundreds of miles from their homes, the team organising the emergency response says.

The Grenfell Response Team also said it was not aware any victims were sleeping in parks and denied claims some could be made "intentionally homeless".

Labour MPs have raised concerns some people are sleeping rough and others being offered housing in Lancashire.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40343897

Is it true Jeremy Corbyn has stopped beating his wife? I'm not saying he is - but I think we should be told.......(PARODY - I'm sure Corbyn is a fine husband, but this is how it works....)

fitalass said:

Y0kel said:

https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/status/876813684550635524

Just about sums it up.

Not sure the electorate will thank any party who tries to force a third GE on in the UK in two and half years, and during the vital Brexit talks

Just look what they've done to the politician who forced the second one......

The Republicans have won the Special Election in Georgia's 6th District, in what is the most expensive Congressional race ever.

CarlottaVance said:

fitalass said:

Y0kel said:

https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/status/876813684550635524

Just about sums it up.

Not sure the electorate will thank any party who tries to force a third GE on in the UK in two and half years, and during the vital Brexit talks

Just look what they've done to the politician who forced the second one......

Anectdote alert. I had someone (non Conservative voter and no fan of May) angrily complaining to me that they had felt the need to defend her due to the way the media had behaved towards her last week! That was when I knew the media had overplayed their hand in their behaviour to May despite my own gut instinct telling me that was the case by around Friday last week.

Even tonight, the credibility of the media reporting on the failure of the Government, ie May to reach an agreement with the DUP before the QS is hanging by a shoogle peg. But I suppose that many political journalists and commentators are going to try to avoid having egg on their face after portraying May weak and without backbench support when in fact the DUP are tonight whinging about Conservative backbenchers treating them with a lack of respect... It really does kick the media narrative of a weak leader barely hanging on if May has refused the DUP demands and called their bluff...

With the vital Good Friday peace agreement hanging in the balance and no functioning devolved Government in place at Stormont, why the hell did anyone in Westminster Lobby think that the DUP were ever in a more powerful position than May and the Conservatives at Westminster right now?!

Tim_B said:

The Democrats did their usual 'war on women' campaign. The democrat was male, the GOP candidate female.

Full disclosure - I live in the adjacent district.

That looks like quite a good Republican result.

Sean_F said:

Tim_B said:

The Democrats did their usual 'war on women' campaign. The democrat was male, the GOP candidate female.

Full disclosure - I live in the adjacent district.

That looks like quite a good Republican result.

Trump underperformed in this district. The Dems also lost the SC election. The Dems have some serious questions to answer.

The polls showed it close - Handel won by 6%