As schools in England re-open CON members give EdSec Williamson a MINUS 44% rating – politicalbettin

MarqueeMark said:

How the hell did he get as high as -44%?

MattW said:

8th.

And FPT as I slept well last night.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

londonpubman said:

kyf_100 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56294009

It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.

It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.

How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄

Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.

All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.

What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past:
- 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now)
- 3% capital charge PER YEAR
- no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL
- double Council Tax on a second property
- any capital gain taxed at 40%

That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.

Let's do it!

We did this last week.

As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.

And in favour of relatively richer people.

It is crazy.

The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.

The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.

Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?

Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?

For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.

You don't understand how housing occupation works.

The rental sector is far more densely occupied than the Owner Occupied sector, so when you move X people from the rental sector to OO - by whatever mechanism you are using to close down rental - you need a lot more houses.

I posted the stats the other day. These are in the English Housing Survey.

Nearly Half of OO houses are underoccupied - the official stat is 2 or more spare bedrooms.

For rental that is under 10%.

Therefore you are creating a lot of people with nowhere to live - homeless.

And you need to have a policy where you will put the people you are making homeless.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Edit - And I notice you've gone all Corbynite calling unimpeachable facts 'smears.'

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

Never have I seen a more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence than from these 2 multi millionaires as seems to be the case with this disgraceful interview.

Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

8th.

And FPT as I slept well last night.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

londonpubman said:

kyf_100 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56294009

It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.

It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.

How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄

Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.

All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.

What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past:
- 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now)
- 3% capital charge PER YEAR
- no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL
- double Council Tax on a second property
- any capital gain taxed at 40%

That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.

Let's do it!

We did this last week.

As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.

And in favour of relatively richer people.

It is crazy.

The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.

The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.

Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?

Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?

For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.

You don't understand how housing occupation works.

The rental sector is far more densely occupied than the Owner Occupied sector, so when you move X people from the rental sector to OO - by whatever mechanism you are using to close down rental - you need a lot more houses.

I posted the stats the other day. These are in the English Housing Survey.

Nearly Half of OO houses are underoccupied - the official stat is 2 or more spare bedrooms.

For rental that is under 10%.

Therefore you are creating a lot of people with nowhere to live - homeless.

And you need to have a policy where you will put the people you are making homeless.

Do you think, then, that we actually need more rental properties and should aim to have fewer people getting on the ladder?

Sean_F said:

Whether Archie Windsor gets to be called Prince, Duke or Earl seems to fall very much into the category of Rich Peoples' Problems.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Two days after my AZ/Oxford jab and I am feeling dreadful. Had a real bad night - fever, chills, terrible muscle pains and severe headache.

I knew there were some fever like effects for a day or so. But this has poleaxed me. Anyone else had a bad reaction? How many days does this last?

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

Never have I seen a more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence than from these 2 multi millionaires as seems to be the case with this disgraceful interview.

Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!

Never have I seen a more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence than from these 2 multi millionaires

Do you not read anyone else's posts?

I’m sure I read a post recently from a narcissistic millionaire throwing a strop that their favourite food was going to be banned

eek said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

8th.

And FPT as I slept well last night.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

londonpubman said:

kyf_100 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56294009

It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.

It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.

How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄

Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.

All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.

What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past:
- 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now)
- 3% capital charge PER YEAR
- no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL
- double Council Tax on a second property
- any capital gain taxed at 40%

That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.

Let's do it!

We did this last week.

As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.

And in favour of relatively richer people.

It is crazy.

The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.

The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.

Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?

Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?

For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.

You don't understand how housing occupation works.

The rental sector is far more densely occupied than the Owner Occupied sector, so when you move X people from the rental sector to OO - by whatever mechanism you are using to close down rental - you need a lot more houses.

I posted the stats the other day. These are in the English Housing Survey.

Nearly Half of OO houses are underoccupied - the official stat is 2 or more spare bedrooms.

For rental that is under 10%.

Therefore you are creating a lot of people with nowhere to live - homeless.

And you need to have a policy where you will put the people you are making homeless.

Do you think, then, that we actually need more rental properties and should aim to have fewer people getting on the ladder?

I do believe that we need to remove amateurs from the rental market and let more pension firms build to rent.

As for the idea of using under occupation (2 or more spare bedrooms) as the basis of anything beyond inappropriate use of housing stock I will leave things there especially as thanks to Covid those rooms are probably being used.

Our 5 bedroom house (3 occupied) now has separate working spaces for me (always been the case) and my wife who has only needed them due needing to WFH through covid.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

8th.

And FPT as I slept well last night.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

londonpubman said:

kyf_100 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56294009

It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.

It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.

How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄

Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.

All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.

What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past:
- 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now)
- 3% capital charge PER YEAR
- no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL
- double Council Tax on a second property
- any capital gain taxed at 40%

That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.

Let's do it!

We did this last week.

As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.

And in favour of relatively richer people.

It is crazy.

The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.

The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.

Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?

Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?

For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.

You don't understand how housing occupation works.

The rental sector is far more densely occupied than the Owner Occupied sector, so when you move X people from the rental sector to OO - by whatever mechanism you are using to close down rental - you need a lot more houses.

I posted the stats the other day. These are in the English Housing Survey.

Nearly Half of OO houses are underoccupied - the official stat is 2 or more spare bedrooms.

For rental that is under 10%.

Therefore you are creating a lot of people with nowhere to live - homeless.

And you need to have a policy where you will put the people you are making homeless.

Do you think, then, that we actually need more rental properties and should aim to have fewer people getting on the ladder?

It's not a zero sum game. We need a sufficient rental supply, and a sufficient OO supply.

I find it strange that the argument for "we need more houses to bring prices down" sits alongside "make renting more expensive", when the latter is occupied by people less well off than the former. And when many millions of
them do not have the opportunity to buy.

Complex issue. And it won't be moved forward by simplistic policies.

Unfortunately politicians are on the whole useless on this, and make a bigger mess every time tehy stick an oar in.

One thing I would say is to tilt policy towards increasing household size, which is down significantly since even the 1970s/1980s. But there are a lot of other nuances.

tlg86 said:

eek said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

8th.

And FPT as I slept well last night.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

londonpubman said:

kyf_100 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56294009

It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.

It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.

How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄

Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.

All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.

What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past:
- 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now)
- 3% capital charge PER YEAR
- no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL
- double Council Tax on a second property
- any capital gain taxed at 40%

That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.

Let's do it!

We did this last week.

As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.

And in favour of relatively richer people.

It is crazy.

The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.

The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.

Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?

Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?

For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.

You don't understand how housing occupation works.

The rental sector is far more densely occupied than the Owner Occupied sector, so when you move X people from the rental sector to OO - by whatever mechanism you are using to close down rental - you need a lot more houses.

I posted the stats the other day. These are in the English Housing Survey.

Nearly Half of OO houses are underoccupied - the official stat is 2 or more spare bedrooms.

For rental that is under 10%.

Therefore you are creating a lot of people with nowhere to live - homeless.

And you need to have a policy where you will put the people you are making homeless.

Do you think, then, that we actually need more rental properties and should aim to have fewer people getting on the ladder?

I do believe that we need to remove amateurs from the rental market and let more pension firms build to rent.

As for the idea of using under occupation (2 or more spare bedrooms) as the basis of anything beyond inappropriate use of housing stock I will leave things there especially as thanks to Covid those rooms are probably being used.

Our 5 bedroom house (3 occupied) now has separate working spaces for me (always been the case) and my wife who has only needed them due needing to WFH through covid.

I like to think that I'm doing my bit to help improve the occupancy stats for owner occupied housing by living at home with my parents.

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

They wish to no longer be royals and do royal duties fine, cut them off without a penny more, remove all royal titles from them and let us never hear from them on these shores again!

Anabobazina said:

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious

They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.

For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!

BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!

You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Two days after my AZ/Oxford jab and I am feeling dreadful. Had a real bad night - fever, chills, terrible muscle pains and severe headache.

I knew there were some fever like effects for a day or so. But this has poleaxed me. Anyone else had a bad reaction? How many days does this last?

Sorry to hear that but am sure it will pass

My wife and I had our second Pfizer vaccinations yesterday and became listless quite quickly but after a night's sleep feeling better but the arm is quite sore

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!

BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!

You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.

Can you be a remainer and be a Tory?

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!

BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!

You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.

Can you be a remainer and be a Tory?

Of course, see Ted Heath or John Major or Theresa May or David Cameron or Jeremy Hunt

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Two days after my AZ/Oxford jab and I am feeling dreadful. Had a real bad night - fever, chills, terrible muscle pains and severe headache.

I knew there were some fever like effects for a day or so. But this has poleaxed me. Anyone else had a bad reaction? How many days does this last?

Sorry to hear that but am sure it will pass

My wife and I had our second Pfizer vaccinations yesterday and became listless quite quickly but after a night's sleep feeling better but the arm is quite sore

Thanks. I couldn't sleep. Not a wink. I think that has made it all feel much worse. Hopefully I will start to come around later today.

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Two days after my AZ/Oxford jab and I am feeling dreadful. Had a real bad night - fever, chills, terrible muscle pains and severe headache.

I knew there were some fever like effects for a day or so. But this has poleaxed me. Anyone else had a bad reaction? How many days does this last?

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Two days after my AZ/Oxford jab and I am feeling dreadful. Had a real bad night - fever, chills, terrible muscle pains and severe headache.

I knew there were some fever like effects for a day or so. But this has poleaxed me. Anyone else had a bad reaction? How many days does this last?

Sorry to hear that but am sure it will pass

My wife and I had our second Pfizer vaccinations yesterday and became listless quite quickly but after a night's sleep feeling better but the arm is quite sore

Thanks. I couldn't sleep. Not a wink. I think that has made it all feel much worse. Hopefully I will start to come around later today.

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Edit - And I notice you've gone all Corbynite calling unimpeachable facts 'smears.'

The smear was the implied motivation you ascribed for the Quern’s decision. That’s not a fact.

Well the person who dealt with the Queen implied as much, she would know better than you.

One side to a nasty dispute made an allegation without evidence.

You have accepted and amplified that.

Shame on you

The family stinks, this is the write up in The Times.

If that was not enough, the royal family was implicitly accused of racism when Meghan said that someone in the family had a conversation with Meghan about the colour of Archie’s skin.

As someone with mixed race children experience tells me that whoever brought up the skin colour of the kids has a bad heart.

kjh said:

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Morning all,

Two days after my AZ/Oxford jab and I am feeling dreadful. Had a real bad night - fever, chills, terrible muscle pains and severe headache.

I knew there were some fever like effects for a day or so. But this has poleaxed me. Anyone else had a bad reaction? How many days does this last?

Sorry to hear that but am sure it will pass

My wife and I had our second Pfizer vaccinations yesterday and became listless quite quickly but after a night's sleep feeling better but the arm is quite sore

Thanks. I couldn't sleep. Not a wink. I think that has made it all feel much worse. Hopefully I will start to come around later today.

Re AZ vaccine:

A friend of mine (who has had Covid) had the same reaction to you but it passed after about 12 hours. He had a terrible night.

Everyone else I know (including me) has had mild flu like symptoms for a day.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!

BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!

You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.

Can you be a remainer and be a Tory?

Of course, see Ted Heath or John Major or Theresa May or David Cameron or Jeremy Hunt

No you can't. Being a remainer means that you want to join the EU. That is directly contradictory to Tory party policy.

Sean_F said:

Whether Archie Windsor gets to be called Prince, Duke or Earl seems to fall very much into the category of Rich Peoples' Problems.

Charles said:

Anabobazina said:

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious

They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.

For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.

You don’t know that they were “concerns”. I could imagine someone of a certain generation asking what colour the child of a white/mixed couple would be. It’s gauche and offensive certainly, but possibly not quite as it has been painted.

But it has been presented in a particularly wounding and damaging way. Almost as if it was designed to attract ratings.

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

That’s a very unpleasant smear

Shame on you

Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.

Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!

BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!

You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.

Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?

If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Oh mate, how do you do it? A week over Xmas was too much for me.

I've done it for the last eight years.

It is great when you have kids and your parents dote on them 24/7.

#168HoursWorthOfFreeChildcareAWeek

I think my wife would divorce me on the spot if I suggested it, I'd probably need to be checked into a mental hospital too. Not that my parents are horrible people, they aren't and are very good hosts to everyone who stays and dealt with having us and my sister's family over at the same time this Christmas. I just couldn't ever imagine having to love with them in their house ever again. It's been about 10 years since I moved out and bought my first flat in Shepherd's Bush. I remember the many people if PB telling me to go for it at the time despite fears of taking on a big mortgage etc...

OldKingCole said:

Scott_xP said:

Charles said:

Basically the grandchildren of a monarch are princes/princesses but their children are not. Meghan got upset because she didn’t get special treatment.

But Kate did

Kate knew what she was about from the time she walked into Williams student party in a see-through dress.

eek said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

8th.

And FPT as I slept well last night.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

londonpubman said:

kyf_100 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56294009

It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.

It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.

How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄

Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.

All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.

What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past:
- 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now)
- 3% capital charge PER YEAR
- no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL
- double Council Tax on a second property
- any capital gain taxed at 40%

That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.

Let's do it!

We did this last week.

As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.

And in favour of relatively richer people.

It is crazy.

The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.

The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.

Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?

Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?

For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.

You don't understand how housing occupation works.

The rental sector is far more densely occupied than the Owner Occupied sector, so when you move X people from the rental sector to OO - by whatever mechanism you are using to close down rental - you need a lot more houses.

I posted the stats the other day. These are in the English Housing Survey.

Nearly Half of OO houses are underoccupied - the official stat is 2 or more spare bedrooms.

For rental that is under 10%.

Therefore you are creating a lot of people with nowhere to live - homeless.

And you need to have a policy where you will put the people you are making homeless.

Do you think, then, that we actually need more rental properties and should aim to have fewer people getting on the ladder?

It's not a zero sum game. We need a sufficient rental supply, and a sufficient OO supply.

I find it strange that the argument for "we need more houses to bring prices down" sits alongside "make renting more expensive", when the latter is occupied by people less well off than the former. And when many millions of
them do not have the opportunity to buy.

Complex issue. And it won't be moved forward by simplistic policies.

Unfortunately politicians are on the whole useless on this, and make a bigger mess every time tehy stick an oar in.

One thing I would say is to tilt policy towards increasing household size, which is down significantly since even the 1970s/1980s. But there are a lot of other nuances.

So you are against the bedroom tax then?

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious

Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop too

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1368753624688566272?s=20

She wasn't taking the risk of him doing a runner! (I used to work with a guy who did that....)

MattW said:

eek said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

8th.

And FPT as I slept well last night.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

londonpubman said:

kyf_100 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56294009

It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.

It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.

How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄

Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.

All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.

What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past:
- 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now)
- 3% capital charge PER YEAR
- no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL
- double Council Tax on a second property
- any capital gain taxed at 40%

That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.

Let's do it!

We did this last week.

As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.

And in favour of relatively richer people.

It is crazy.

The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.

The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.

Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?

Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?

For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.

You don't understand how housing occupation works.

The rental sector is far more densely occupied than the Owner Occupied sector, so when you move X people from the rental sector to OO - by whatever mechanism you are using to close down rental - you need a lot more houses.

I posted the stats the other day. These are in the English Housing Survey.

Nearly Half of OO houses are underoccupied - the official stat is 2 or more spare bedrooms.

For rental that is under 10%.

Therefore you are creating a lot of people with nowhere to live - homeless.

And you need to have a policy where you will put the people you are making homeless.

Do you think, then, that we actually need more rental properties and should aim to have fewer people getting on the ladder?

It's not a zero sum game. We need a sufficient rental supply, and a sufficient OO supply.

I find it strange that the argument for "we need more houses to bring prices down" sits alongside "make renting more expensive", when the latter is occupied by people less well off than the former. And when many millions of
them do not have the opportunity to buy.

Complex issue. And it won't be moved forward by simplistic policies.

Unfortunately politicians are on the whole useless on this, and make a bigger mess every time tehy stick an oar in.

One thing I would say is to tilt policy towards increasing household size, which is down significantly since even the 1970s/1980s. But there are a lot of other nuances.

So you are against the bedroom tax then?

I'm not clear what that has to do with people being made homeless if you turn rental homes 1:1 into owner occupied. That was just a disaster which would be caused by the policy suggested.

The principle that a home being contributed to by the state being the size of accommodation needed for the household it is being funded for seems appropriate.

There are obvs wrinkles at the edges, and perhaps on the implementation, but the basic principle seems sound.

The weird thing I found with the 'Bedroom Tax' was that it was aiui essentially bringing PRS in the Social Sector HB into line with what had existed for years in the PRS, and all those bodies (Shelter and so on) yammering about how evil it all was appeared to care far more for the politics than the actual people - otherwise they would have said something about HB in the PRS years earlier. As far as I am aware they did not - though open to correction as it is some time ago.

MattW said:

eek said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

8th.

And FPT as I slept well last night.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

londonpubman said:

kyf_100 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56294009

It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.

It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.

How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄

Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.

All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.

What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past:
- 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now)
- 3% capital charge PER YEAR
- no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL
- double Council Tax on a second property
- any capital gain taxed at 40%

That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.

Let's do it!

We did this last week.

As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.

And in favour of relatively richer people.

It is crazy.

The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.

The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.

Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?

Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?

For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.

You don't understand how housing occupation works.

The rental sector is far more densely occupied than the Owner Occupied sector, so when you move X people from the rental sector to OO - by whatever mechanism you are using to close down rental - you need a lot more houses.

I posted the stats the other day. These are in the English Housing Survey.

Nearly Half of OO houses are underoccupied - the official stat is 2 or more spare bedrooms.

For rental that is under 10%.

Therefore you are creating a lot of people with nowhere to live - homeless.

And you need to have a policy where you will put the people you are making homeless.

Do you think, then, that we actually need more rental properties and should aim to have fewer people getting on the ladder?

It's not a zero sum game. We need a sufficient rental supply, and a sufficient OO supply.

I find it strange that the argument for "we need more houses to bring prices down" sits alongside "make renting more expensive", when the latter is occupied by people less well off than the former. And when many millions of
them do not have the opportunity to buy.

Complex issue. And it won't be moved forward by simplistic policies.

Unfortunately politicians are on the whole useless on this, and make a bigger mess every time tehy stick an oar in.

One thing I would say is to tilt policy towards increasing household size, which is down significantly since even the 1970s/1980s. But there are a lot of other nuances.

So you are against the bedroom tax then?

I'm not clear what that has to do with people being made homeless if you turn rental homes 1:1 into owner occupied. That was just a disaster which would be caused by the policy suggested.

The principle that a home being contributed to by the state being the size of accommodation needed for the household it is being funded for seems appropriate.

There are obvs wrinkles at the edges, and perhaps on the implementation, but the basic principle seems sound.

The weird thing I found with the 'Bedroom Tax' was that it was aiui essentially bringing PRS in the Social Sector HB into line with what had existed for years in the PRS, and all those bodies (Shelter and so on) yammering about how evil it all was appeared to care far more for the politics than the actual people - otherwise they would have said something about HB in the PRS years earlier. As far as I am aware they did not - though open to correction as it is some time ago.

eek said:

kle4 said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious

They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.

For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.

It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.

Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.

It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.

It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.

This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1368852137321631744

Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious

They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.

For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.

It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.