HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

Biggest progress recently being good old free markt China.

Yes, compare it now to when it was under Mao

Yes, and? Is China today your free market ideal? Too far for me comrade.

China's process of industrialisation in the 20th century killed as many peasants as our industrialisation killed Indian peasants in the 19th. Many here would say te latter was worth it because of the gains which ultimately followed (and did in the last thread). Is the logic different for Communist Party China?

No of course not, Switzerland would be far better for most.

It was Mao who made the 'Great Leap Forward' so brutal

If only every country could simply choose to be Switzerland rather than choosing to be Sudan or something. But really: the bulk of the poverty reduction over the last few decades has been in China, so how is that attributable to free market capitalism?

It was Deng Xiaoping /cn.html

Again, and? China under Deng up to today is still far too heavily state managed and guided to be called free market capitalism with a straight face.

I never said it was, just the shift from the communism of Mao to the more market orientated economy of today brought wealth creation with it

So is the 'free market' responsible or not for the global reduction in poverty, the bulk of which has been under the stewardship of the CCP? Shall we put China in the 'market' box now while we're talking about poverty reduction, and retroactively put it in the 'Communist state' box if and when the regime collapses?

Of course because it Mao

CCP philosophy I gather is that economic security is the first freedom, without which others are unreal for most. But for the last time: it's bizarre how you want to claim Deng China's record for the 'free market'. It's no such thing, state and the market are 'enmeshed' they call it, a 'socialist market economy' very different from a free market one.

For the last time that is also rather different than the entirely socialist economy under Mao

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

@DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

@HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.

Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.

rkrkrk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rkrkrk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The referendum was the 8th June and by the 30th June 2016 it was 1.34 - today it is 1.34 and expected to rise so 6% initial fall and as of today still 1.34

Think you have your dates mixed up

Getting old - quite right 8th June 2016 was my daughters 45th birthday

I had to be reminded twice today that Friday is tomorrow.

DavidL said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

@DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

@HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.

Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.

I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/913497262097039360

Danny565 said:

AnneJGP said:

glw said:

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

free-market economics – has established a system where eight people own as much wealth as half the planet

May thinks its our greatest ever achievement

How is that there Venezuela coming along ?

*cough* "That's not true socialism/communism."

I believe that's the standard answer when someone points out the 100% failure record.

It will be quite an interesting experiment though, to introduce it in this country, where everyone is accustomed to instant responses.

In the days of the old telephone company or water board or gas board or whatever, you reported a fault or made a request for service, and 3 - 6 months later you were still waiting.

(edit: remove a 't' - not 'experiment thought' , but 'experiment though'.)

LOL, when was the last time you tried to get a utility company to resolve a problem? Do you really think it's any different these days.

Nationalisation certainly isn't perfect, but atleast with that there's the opportunity to affect the running of utilities with our votes at the ballot box - as opposed to now, where the completely unaccountable people who run these cartels face no pressure, and therefore have no incentives to offer a better service

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

@DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

@HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.

Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.

I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.

An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.

Pong said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

@DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

@HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.

Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.

I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.

An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.

I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.

Pulpstar said:

Pong said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

@DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

@HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.

Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.

I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.

An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.

I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.

What LTV is that on ?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pong said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

@DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

@HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.

Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.

I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.

An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.

I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.

BOE indicated rises this year and said it was a good sign

Pong said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

@DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

@HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.

Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.

I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.

An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.

I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

This is going to be an expensive lunch, if @TOPPING gets to choose the wines.

I think we should let Ms Cyclefree choose the venue.

amortised over, oh I don't know, 15 years which is probably when I (and others?) last had a comparable blow out it's positively a steal...

Can good Muslim boys who don't drink alcohol attend this shindig?

Like all these things I rather think that it will remain in the imagination rather than take place but I could be wrong (in which case the answer is yes of course!).

JohnO and I recently had lunch and drinks in Searcys, it was immense fun.

Mister Robert Smithson and I have recently taken to getting drunk on champers or - when he's feeling puritan - just slightly drunk on NZ Sauv Blanc - in the Groucho. It's also fun.

I thought Smithson Jnr had relocated to the socialist republic of southern California?

He flies back on his private jet JUST for the opportunity of sharing a New World White and a bowl of Twiglets with the author of THE BIBLE OF THE DEAD

SeanT said:

I've been Long and Bullish on China for yonks, as old pb-ers will note. I predicted China would overtake the USA in GDP, on this site, when all i got was scornful laughter in return. They ain't laughing now,

Interestingly, one of the main arguments my opponents presented was that China was just a nation of tin-bashing drones, incapable of innovation, stifling new companies and ideas, they only ever copied and stole, blah blah

I pointed out, dutifully, that exactly the same accusations were levelled by Brits at industrialising Germany in the 1880s, and by the entire West at Japan in the 1950s and 60s.

Singapore, likewise.

Now read this, in the Economist:

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21729429-industries-and-consumers-around-world-will-soon-feel-their-impact-chinas-audacious-and

China is actually OVERTAKING the USA in terms of enterprise and start-ups

Pong said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

@DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

@HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.

Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.

I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.

An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.

I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.

Cyclefree said:

rkrkrk said:

Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

This is going to be an expensive lunch, if @TOPPING gets to choose the wines.

I think we should let Ms Cyclefree choose the venue.

amortised over, oh I don't know, 15 years which is probably when I (and others?) last had a comparable blow out it's positively a steal...

Can good Muslim boys who don't drink alcohol attend this shindig?

Like all these things I rather think that it will remain in the imagination rather than take place but I could be wrong (in which case the answer is yes of course!).

JohnO and I recently had lunch and drinks in Searcys, it was immense fun.

Mister Robert Smithson and I have recently taken to getting drunk on champers or - when he's feeling puritan - just slightly drunk on NZ Sauv Blanc - in the Groucho. It's also fun.

I thought Smithson Jnr had relocated to the socialist republic of southern California?

rkrkrk said:

Cyclefree said:

rkrkrk said:

Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?

Doesn't really?
His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...

SeanT said:

rkrkrk said:

SeanT said:

I've been Long and Bullish on China for yonks, as old pb-ers will note. I predicted China would overtake the USA in GDP, on this site, when all i got was scornful laughter in return. They ain't laughing now,

Interestingly, one of the main arguments my opponents presented was that China was just a nation of tin-bashing drones, incapable of innovation, stifling new companies and ideas, they only ever copied and stole, blah blah

I pointed out, dutifully, that exactly the same accusations were levelled by Brits at industrialising Germany in the 1880s, and by the entire West at Japan in the 1950s and 60s.

Singapore, likewise.

Now read this, in the Economist:

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21729429-industries-and-consumers-around-world-will-soon-feel-their-impact-chinas-audacious-and

China is actually OVERTAKING the USA in terms of enterprise and start-ups

Anybody who told you China won't overtake the US in GDP has very little idea of growth in economics.

Poor countries should grow faster and China has 4x the population. short of massive war it was inevitable.

Similarly India will overtake the US at some point.

Well then you should have been on this site 8 years ago, when my predictions and prognostications about China were roundly ridiculed.

MarqueeMark said:

Cyclefree said:

rkrkrk said:

Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?

Or the NHS.....

rkrkrk said:

MarqueeMark said:

Cyclefree said:

rkrkrk said:

Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?

Or the NHS.....

Not sure what you are getting at - those policies are supposed to help people in other ways.

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

Biggest progress recently being good old free markt China.

Yes, compare it now to when it was under Mao

...

No of course not, Switzerland would be far better for most.

It was Mao who made the 'Great Leap Forward' so brutal

If only every country could simply choose to be Switzerland rather than choosing to be Sudan or something. But really: the bulk of the poverty reduction over the last few decades has been in China, so how is that attributable to free market capitalism?

It was Deng Xiaoping /cn.html

Again, and? China under Deng up to today is still far too heavily state managed and guided to be called free market capitalism with a straight face.

I never said it was, just the shift from the communism of Mao to the more market orientated economy of today brought wealth creation with it

So is the 'free regime collapses?

Of course because it Mao

CCP philosophy I gather is that economic security is the first freedom, without which others are unreal for most. But for the last time: it's bizarre how you want to claim Deng China's record for the 'free market'. It's no such thing, state and the market are 'enmeshed' they call it, a 'socialist market economy' very different from a free market one.

For the last time that is also rather different than the entirely socialist economy under Mao

That's just a dodge. Your original claim was .

No, the increased wealth only came when China ditched pure socialism in favour of more of the market economy. McDonnell of course is the guy who quoted from Mao's 'Little Red Book'

Ask anyone who has worked in China. From an economic POV, it makes Britain look socialist.

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

Cyclefree said:

rkrkrk said:

Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?

Doesn't really?
His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...

It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.

surbiton said:

Stokes, an England all-rounder allegedly beat up some guy outside a bar. If history repeats itself, then,

Twenty years on: Arise Sir Benjamin!

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

SoCal vs London

Advantage SoCal
Weather
Property costs
Wages
Mexican food
Burgers
New World wine prices
Beaches
Weather

Advantage London
Indian food
Public transport
Top class restaurants
Things stay open after 10pm
Indian food
Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.

HYUFD said:

Yes, which only began under Deng after the purer communism of Mao clearly failed.

China today spends less and taxes less than not only every major western economy and Japan and South Korea but Brazil, South Africa and Russia too. It even spends less than India (although its taxes are slightly higher) Indeed, apart from Singapore and many of the oil rich companies of the Middle East China in tax and spending terms at least is as capitalist as they come
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

Cyclefree said:

rkrkrk said:

Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?

Doesn't really?
His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...

It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Yes, which only began under Deng after the purer communism of Mao clearly failed.

China today spends less and taxes less than not only every major western economy and Japan and South Korea but Brazil, South Africa and Russia too. It even spends less than India (although its taxes are slightly higher) Indeed, apart from Singapore and many of the oil rich companies of the Middle East China in tax and spending terms at least is as capitalist as they come
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

Taxes are low because the Chinese government sells land to support spending. I'm not sure that's sustainable in the long run.

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

Cyclefree said:

rkrkrk said:

Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?

Doesn't really?
His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...

It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.

I'm not an expert but seems Tory housing Minister disagreed with you?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-housebuilders-restricting-the-supply-of-new-houses-to-keep-prices-unnecessarily-high-a6906016.html?amp

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/913511387023978498

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

SoCal vs London

Advantage SoCal
Weather
Property costs
Wages
Mexican food
Burgers
New World wine prices
Beaches
Weather

Advantage London
Indian food
Public transport
Top class restaurants
Things stay open after 10pm
Indian food
Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.

Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/913511387023978498

Hmm, step down after we leave the EU? Theresa has a cunning plan to remain leader indefinitely...

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

SoCal vs London

Advantage SoCal
Weather
Property costs
Wages
Mexican food
Burgers
New World wine prices
Beaches
Weather

Advantage London
Indian food
Public transport
Top class restaurants
Things stay open after 10pm
Indian food
Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.

Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)

Just back from an indulgent tour of Cornwall.

First night - an OK bottle of Gev, nigh on £80.
Second night - a really stunning CA Pinot, £55

Tonight I'm drinking a really decent Marlborough Pinot. Less than the Chateauneuf at the supermarket. It goes with Shepherd's Pie really well: https://www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tummil-flat-pinot-noir-marlborough-2014/

foxinsoxuk said:

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

Cyclefree said:

rkrkrk said:

Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?

Doesn't really?
His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...

It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.

I'm not an expert but seems Tory housing Minister disagreed with you?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-housebuilders-restricting-the-supply-of-new-houses-to-keep-prices-unnecessarily-high-a6906016.html?amp

I think that you also have to allow for the working methods of smaller builders with limited capital and staff. It is not unusual for a small builder to acquire a patch of land, get planning permission, then have lack enough capital and contractors to build rapidly upon it.

They often can only build at a rate that a smallish workforce can cope with, and sales of houses are needed to finance the next stage of the development. Once you allow for market fluctuations on the rate of selling then generally it takes some years to complete the site and move on.

If "use it or lose it" is the rule, then smallet developers would be forced to sell their land (often after prolonged attempts at planning permission) to the big builders.

dixiedean said:

Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.

NEW THREAD

dixiedean said:

welshowl said:

YellowSubmarine said:

The Conservatives need a leader with the genius to grasp the obvious. If they are to repeat the trick of selling Council Houses they need to build some Council Houses to sell. The UK is gagging for a Left/Right Grand Bargain where we build vast amounts of RSL properties but 50% aren't allocated on the existing needs criteria but a new aspirational/contributory one. And those new properties have a clear long term path to ownership.

It's these new aspirational renters who are hit by a double whammy. Too poor to ever buy, not poor enough to get a secure RSL tennancy. Locked in the limbo of long term insecure PRS letting which our Tory overlords think is still exclusively the preserve of students and drug addicts. The prospect of a decent RSL property with clear path to eventual ownership would be a retail offer to behold.

I tend to agree. Housing is a huge issue and we can all theorise and probably disagree how we got here, but we are here, and we need to get our fingers out and do something about it- which means at the least building more of it and lots. Now there's nuance as to how and where and what mix etc etc and clearly we have to have some ne regard for the existing or we could build flats next to Stonehenge which would hardly be appropriate,

But build we must, and whilst I generally would like govt to bugger off, leave me alone, and not do much, it's got to facilitate here, and I'd hope for some tangible action soon.

Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

Cyclefree said:

rkrkrk said:

Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?

Doesn't really?
His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...

It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.

I'm not an expert but seems Tory housing Minister disagreed with you?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-housebuilders-restricting-the-supply-of-new-houses-to-keep-prices-unnecessarily-high-a6906016.html?amp

I think that you also have to allow for the working methods of smaller builders with limited capital and staff. It is not unusual for a small builder to acquire a patch of land, get planning permission, then have lack enough capital and contractors to build rapidly upon it.

They often can only build at

The problem is that the vast majority of that land banked land is held by the 4 big developers. Between them they have almost half a million plots with existing planning permission. They also have almost the entirety of the additional half a million plots under strategic agreements.

I agree about smaller builders but there is no excuse for the big boys.

TheScreamingEagles said:

dixiedean said:

Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.

I fear Everton have done what Liverpool did in 2014.

Sold their best player, and used the money to buy a load of other players, but never got round to replacing the star man

rcs1000 said:

SoCal vs London

Advantage SoCal
Weather
Property costs
Wages
Mexican food
Burgers
New World wine prices
Beaches
Weather

Advantage London
Indian food
Public transport
Top class restaurants
Things stay open after 10pm
Indian food
Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

dixiedean said:

welshowl said:

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

SoCal vs London

Advantage SoCal
Weather
Property costs
Wages
Mexican food
Burgers
New World wine prices
Beaches
Weather

Advantage London
Indian food
Public transport
Top class restaurants
Things stay open after 10pm
Indian food
Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.

Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)

Just back from an indulgent tour of Cornwall.

First night - an OK bottle of Gev, nigh on £80.
Second night - a really stunning CA Pinot, £55

Tonight I'm drinking a really decent Marlborough Pinot. Less than the Chateauneuf at the supermarket. It goes with Shepherd's Pie really well: https://www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tummil-flat-pinot-noir-marlborough-2014/

Lol. Just having a glass of Era Costana Rioja from Sainsbury's £5.75 the bottle.

I'm a pleb.

Cheapskate! I splashed an entire £5.99 on a Montes Cabaret Sauvignon from the Co-op.