As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
There was some recent footage of Trump doing that "waving and pointing to a life-long friend in the crowd" from the top of some aircraft steps. From the view behind him, though, it was obvious that he was waving to nobody. A couple of airport technicians getting on with their job - and that was it.
Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?
Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.
I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.
Fukushima was the final straw in Germany. At the time, Merkel was resisting strong pressure to phase out nuclear power, but she eventually crumbled after public opinion turned strongly against it after Fukushima.
Which is nuts, as Germany isn’t exactly famous for earthquakes and tsunamis. Angela Merkel, with a doctorate in chemistry and an academic career as a scientist, should really have been able to explain this.
The problem is that electorates are notoriously resistant to rational explanation. When Fukushima happened, Merkel's government was deeply unpopular, and Merkel was simply unable to resist the pressure of public opinion. Hence her about-turn on nuclear power.
Joking aside, much of the real issue was about power station age. Much as in France and the U.K., most nuclear power stations needed replacement.
Shutting the existing ones down *earlier than might have been managed* was suboptimal.
But keeping them running would have meant granting life extensions to a number. And to keep nuclear power gong would have required a commitment to and starting building new ones
Right, in addition to which there were a bunch of lessons learned from Fukushima (aside from the ones that weren't relevant to Germany like try not to get hit by a tsunami) that would normally have meant spending a load more money on safety improvements.
They could have course have just not spent the money on safety improvements, but if you want to tear up the safety regime that requires applying lessons learned when things go wrong then you can't simultaneously say "look how safe it is".
To be fair, Las Vegas has about 60x as many people in it as Billings, Montana
What is Trump doing in Montana though? Harris is presumably fund raising and was doing a tour of Nevada and Arizona which are in play and sliding her way. Montana? It's weird, to choose a word.
I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.
And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc
What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies. In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.
So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?
Normal countries are independent.
Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.
In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.
Utter bollox, only subjugated countries are NOT Independent.
Perhaps Scotland should think about joining Sweden?
Having voted to stay in a union with their captors, they have clearly developed Stockholm Syndrome....
To be fair, Las Vegas has about 60x as many people in it as Billings, Montana
What is Trump doing in Montana though? Harris is presumably fund raising and was doing a tour of Nevada and Arizona which are in play and sliding her way. Montana? It's weird, to choose a word.
To be fair, Las Vegas has about 60x as many people in it as Billings, Montana
What is Trump doing in Montana though? Harris is presumably fund raising and was doing a tour of Nevada and Arizona which are in play and sliding her way. Montana? It's weird, to choose a word.
I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.
And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc
What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies. In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.
So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?
Normal countries are independent.
Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.
In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.
Utter bollox, only subjugated countries are NOT Independent.
Perhaps Scotland should think about joining Sweden?
Having voted to stay in a union with their captors, they have clearly developed Stockholm Syndrome....
England determined to keep us prisoner for sure as they know the next one will be different result for sure. Clock is ticking.
Mr. 1983, that does suggest Germany has the same earthquake/tsunami risk as Japan, which is not necessarily the case.
It has lower natural disaster risk but higher risk of invasion/war.
Really? In 2011 there was a plausible risk that Germany would be invaded?
It was already quite apparent then, that Putin was using The Gas Weapon to strong arm what he regards as the Near Abroad.
The building of pipelines, so that he could deliver gas to Western Europe separately, was quite clearly designed so that he could create leverage between Eastern and Western Europe by threatening gas supplies to one or other (or both).
The irony is that Merkel didn't even like Putin, not least because of his habit of hassling her with his dogs. But Merkel thought she had a duty to try to bring Russia into the fold of civilised nations as well as atoning for Germany's past wrongs towards Russia, and she tried to do this through trade. That self-serving shit Schroeder, on the other hand...
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Labours upcoming renters reform act will end up making worse situations it aims to remedy and we are already seeing many smaller landlords selling up.
Most smaller landlord are just stopping someone else being an owner occupier, and not increasing supply of housing stock. The service quality is very variable with many ignorant of the laws or unwilling to comply. Some of the big landlords like Grainger are building high quality innovative new flats for rent in places they are needed. All for making it hard for the small landlords and facilitating the big ones.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
Isn’t every aspect of nuclear power production very costly? Why would a country rich in other energy sources choose it? I note Norway hasn’t bothered with it.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
And if we could produce tidal power stations for
1. about a quarter of the cost 2. less than half the construction time 3. that would have a producing lifespan at least three times as long 4. generating no waste products 5. causing no security risk 6. having no meltdown risk 7. are regenerative to the areas where they are built and 7. produce an identical amount of entirely predictable zero carbon power
you might rightly wonder why people have been pushing nuclear so hard.
Mr. 1983, that does suggest Germany has the same earthquake/tsunami risk as Japan, which is not necessarily the case.
It has lower natural disaster risk but higher risk of invasion/war.
Really? In 2011 there was a plausible risk that Germany would be invaded?
It was already quite apparent then, that Putin was using The Gas Weapon to strong arm what he regards as the Near Abroad.
The building of pipelines, so that he could deliver gas to Western Europe separately, was quite clearly designed so that he could create leverage between Eastern and Western Europe by threatening gas supplies to one or other (or both).
The irony is that Merkel didn't even like Putin, not least because of his habit of hassling her with his dogs. But Merkel thought she had a duty to try to bring Russia into the fold of civilised nations as well as atoning for Germany's past wrongs towards Russia, and she tried to do this through trade. That self-serving shit Schroeder, on the other hand...
I think Merkel was primarily trying to avoid a split in her party where the CDU in the East was, and to an extent still is, very pro Russia, while western part was more hawkish.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.
And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc
What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies. In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.
So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?
Normal countries are independent.
Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.
In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.
In Scotland the voters decided they wanted to consider changing their mind. That was not allowed on spurious grounds (vide HYUFD postings ad nauseam).
When did they do that?
An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue
Manifestoes for Holyrood and Westminster elections.
To repeat: An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue
It’s a fairly basic constitutional principle.
Additionally the UK is a partnership - it’s not reasonable for one party to be able to perpetually destabilise the arrangement. A periodic vote is fair (to quote Alex Salmond “once in a generation”) but more frequent than that is an imposition on your partners
Doesnt change the fact that the policy was in the manifestoes of the relevant parties. If that is good enough to be accepted at Westminster when it pertains to Unionist parties ...
Sure it was in the manifesto. But it wasn’t in the power of the Holyrood government (it’s a reserved matter) and the SNP doesn’t have a majority in westminster
The Colonial overlords decided it was reserved, usual for all slave master states. How the Fcuk can 59 have a majority out of 650 you halfwitted cretin. It is far far far from a partnership , master slave relationship.
Morning Malc !
I believe it's 57 not 59 now, as they wanted to reduce the Scottish over-representation at Westminster slightly . Pro-rata would be 52, but more like 54 given the island constituencies.
I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.
And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc
What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies. In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.
So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?
Normal countries are independent.
Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.
In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.
Utter bollox, only subjugated countries are NOT Independent.
Perhaps Scotland should think about joining Sweden?
Having voted to stay in a union with their captors, they have clearly developed Stockholm Syndrome....
England determined to keep us prisoner for sure as they know the next one will be different result for sure. Clock is ticking.
I thought we had had the second one Malcolm. Did the SNP not say that winning a majority of the Westminster seats was going to be their mandate to start negotiations with the UK government on independence? That was their policy, wasn't it? This one wasn't even close.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
Isn’t every aspect of nuclear power production very costly? Why would a country rich in other energy sources choose it? I note Norway hasn’t bothered with it.
Yes. Nuclear is a basket case on the economics, which is why no-one has done much with it recently, despite it having some other advantages. People want to produce electricity at the lowest cost and lowest risk.
But that would mean admitting that Kendal is the centre of Britain (which it is, more or less) and that Manchester is in the poncey south. See? Can't have it both ways.
Many years ago I met a Scot at a wedding, we became really good friends but this was our initial conversation
James: I cannot place your accent, where are you from?
Me: I am a Northerner
James: Nah, you're not from Aberdeen
Me: No, I'm originally from Sheffield
James: Oh so you're a Midlander because Yorkshire is in the middle of Britain
Quite right too. Some of us are *real* Northerners.
The mark of a true northerner: one who believes that the north starts ten miles south of where he was born.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Say you capped rent increases at 5% once per year I suspect the majority of rentals would see an increase of 5% once every year which is more than the average over the last decade or two (albeit possibly less than last 3 years in lots of places).
Ending no fault evictions is the biggest legislative change needed, not price controls. Enforcement of existing laws is also needed more than new laws here.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
The actual volume of high and medium level waste is tiny. A great deal of the headache of storage is to do with the avowed determination of those opposed to nuclear power to make storage impossible.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Yes, well-designed locally targeted rent controls do "work" if the aim is to protect people being forced out of their family homes, out of their communities, from having to find new schools for their children etc. Measures should be accompanied by strategic planning to ensure a supply of affordable housing.
A blanket "all rent controls always bad" is a fundamentalist kind of position.
I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.
And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc
What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies. In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.
So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?
Normal countries are independent.
Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.
In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.
In Scotland the voters decided they wanted to consider changing their mind. That was not allowed on spurious grounds (vide HYUFD postings ad nauseam).
When did they do that?
An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue
Manifestoes for Holyrood and Westminster elections.
To repeat: An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue
It’s a fairly basic constitutional principle.
Additionally the UK is a partnership - it’s not reasonable for one party to be able to perpetually destabilise the arrangement. A periodic vote is fair (to quote Alex Salmond “once in a generation”) but more frequent than that is an imposition on your partners
Doesnt change the fact that the policy was in the manifestoes of the relevant parties. If that is good enough to be accepted at Westminster when it pertains to Unionist parties ...
Sure it was in the manifesto. But it wasn’t in the power of the Holyrood government (it’s a reserved matter) and the SNP doesn’t have a majority in westminster
The Colonial overlords decided it was reserved, usual for all slave master states. How the Fcuk can 59 have a majority out of 650 you halfwitted cretin. It is far far far from a partnership , master slave relationship.
Morning Malc !
I believe it's 57 not 59 now, as they wanted to reduce the Scottish over-representation at Westminster slightly . Pro-rata would be 52, but more like 54 given the island constituencies.
Matt, thank you, you prove my point perfectly and a Good Morning to your goodself.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Say you capped rent increases at 5% once per year I suspect the majority of rentals would see an increase of 5% once every year which is more than the average over the last decade or two (albeit possibly less than last 3 years in lots of places).
Ending no fault evictions is the biggest legislative change needed, not price controls. Enforcement of existing laws is also needed more than new laws here.
Rent control that works only works when the market is near surplus of property - when there is little or no need for rent control!
This occurs in a number of places where rent controls were a historic reaction to the big push (as a result of the mechanisation of agriculture) to the cities.
When this slackened off and population increase slowed down, the rent controls remained.
New York is a classic of the version where rent control was used to try and hod prices down, despite a severe shortage of housing. Many books have been written on this disaster.
It all comes back to creating a surplus of housing. In the housing markets that work, at any one time, 5%+ of properties are empty. In much of the UK, it is a fraction of 1%.
A problem in the UK, generally, is the systemic belief that unused capacity is wastage. Every hospital bed must have 100% occupancy. Every classroom 100% full.
It is an elementary feature of Operations Research that any system running at 99% is on the verge of collapse. What do people perceive about public services?
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Say you capped rent increases at 5% once per year I suspect the majority of rentals would see an increase of 5% once every year which is more than the average over the last decade or two (albeit possibly less than last 3 years in lots of places).
Ending no fault evictions is the biggest legislative change needed, not price controls. Enforcement of existing laws is also needed more than new laws here.
Yes, the official data shows PRS rents increasing more slowly than inflation over the last 20 years.
London is a huge distortion one way or the other all the time in the data, which changes national average rents by around 20-25% (from memory), so using regional data is quite important for any serious analysis.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Both these effects happen at the margin, ie if you do a very teensy rent control you'll make a very teensy improvement on rents for the existing tenants who benefit from it, but also create a very teensy disincentive to keep the place in a decent state and a very teensy additional problem for people trying to move into a new place. There's no known threshold where the benefits apply but the costs don't.
What you suggest may still work for political purposes, ie if the goal is to look like you're doing something but there's nothing useful that you can do then you might want to have a rent control policy but make it so small that you get the favourable media coverage and only do a very teensy amount of real-world damage.
To be fair, Las Vegas has about 60x as many people in it as Billings, Montana
What is Trump doing in Montana though? Harris is presumably fund raising and was doing a tour of Nevada and Arizona which are in play and sliding her way. Montana? It's weird, to choose a word.
Yes, I was wondering about that too.
There are three possible explanations I can think of:
(1) This is the consequence of a fixed schedule. Trump's rallies were decided upon before Biden dropped out of the race, and at that time, it didn't seem like Trump needed to do too much because people would be voting against the incumbent. Indeed, keeping out the way with rallies in safe states seemed like a sensible option.
(2) Trump is retreating into his comfort zone. He doesn't want to go to places where there will be anything other than adulation, and Montana is about as red as they come.
(3) After the assassination attempt, Trump wants to be in places where he feels safe. Billings, Montana is such a place.
The thing is, I don't really buy any of these explanations. I think campaigns regularly change schedules to throw off assassins and to go where there is the greatest need for votes. And I think - if Trump just wanted adulation - he could do a rally at a megachurch in Texas or Alabama or wherever. Finally... fear? I'm not sure I buy that either.
What am I missing? Or is it simply that Trump is making all the decisions, rather than a professional campaigner manager, and he just isn't that aware of where matters? I simply don't get it.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
To which I would add: because the only way to change the rental level is for tht tenants to move, it encourages landlords to engage in unethical behavior in order to"encourage" tenants to move.
I thought about mentioning Rackman and Hoogenstraten but decided that people would focus on that rather than the substance (“wicked landlords. Lock them up!”)
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Both these effects happen at the margin, ie if you do a very teensy rent control you'll make a very teensy improvement on rents for the existing tenants who benefit from it, but also create a very teensy disincentive to keep the place in a decent state and a very teensy additional problem for people trying to move into a new place. There's no known threshold where the benefits apply but the costs don't.
What you suggest may still work for political purposes, ie if the goal is to look like you're doing something but there's nothing useful that you can do then you might want to have a rent control policy but make it so small that you get the favourable media coverage and only do a very teensy amount of real-world damage.
The problem is that Rent Control is politically popular in the short term. It then creates a small, but growing and very vocal group of renters who will defend Rent Control to the death.
It's an example of Populist Politics - warning to @TheScreamingEagles, header incoming.
Again, the history of Reenrol Control in New York is instructive.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
The problem with nuclear power is that it's not particularly cheap, and the older plants are the more expensive they are to run. It's a technology that *should* be inexpensive... but has never really lived up to its promise.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Both these effects happen at the margin, ie if you do a very teensy rent control you'll make a very teensy improvement on rents for the existing tenants who benefit from it, but also create a very teensy disincentive to keep the place in a decent state and a very teensy additional problem for people trying to move into a new place. There's no known threshold where the benefits apply but the costs don't.
What you suggest may still work for political purposes, ie if the goal is to look like you're doing something but there's nothing useful that you can do then you might want to have a rent control policy but make it so small that you get the favourable media coverage and only do a very teensy amount of real-world damage.
The problem is that Rent Control is politically popular in the short term. It then creates a small, but growing and very vocal group of renters who will defend Rent Control to the death.
It's an example of Populist Politics - warning to @TheScreamingEagles, header incoming.
Again, the history of Reenrol Control in New York is instructive.
Or Santa Monica.
Or indeed the UK.
Peter Rachman made himself an absolute fortune by buying properties with rent control tenants and then making their lives a misery.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
The actual volume of high and medium level waste is tiny. A great deal of the headache of storage is to do with the avowed determination of those opposed to nuclear power to make storage impossible.
Cleaning up existing nuclear waste will take 100 years and cost at least £150 billion according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. This doesn't feel like a tiny problem, and I doubt the NDA is in the business of making storage impossible.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
And renewables are now comfortably ahead of coal and lignite. It is worth remembering that 2022 is a bit of an outlier, because of the necessity to finding an immediate alternative to Russian gas, and before there were new imports from the US etc. So lignite use dropped about 25% last year, and has continued to drop this year. Renewables this year are probably going to be twice what coal plus lignite is.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
The actual volume of high and medium level waste is tiny. A great deal of the headache of storage is to do with the avowed determination of those opposed to nuclear power to make storage impossible.
Cleaning up existing nuclear waste will take 100 years and cost at least £150 billion according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. This doesn't feel like a tiny problem, and I doubt the NDA is in the business of making storage impossible.
Much of that is to do with how the early U.K. nuclear program was run.
The stories of how Mountbatten steered Rickover away from the civil side of nuclear power are hilarious. Rickover was extremely safety conscious and would have flipped if he had seen the shit going on.
Another chunk is to do with the stupid kind of gold plating. Instead of spending money on better glassification, or one piece cask forging, bigger piles of paperwork. Sadly, it turns out that radionuclides are disgraceful in their attitude to official paperwork. They have absolutely no respect.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
To which I would add: because the only way to change the rental level is for tht tenants to move, it encourages landlords to engage in unethical behavior in order to "encourage" tenants to move.
Thank you @Sandpit and @rcs1000 - particularly @Sandpit for your fuller account of the arguments against rent controls. (I’ll come back to you re nuclear power.)
You’ve both touched on behavioural aspects of the case against rent controls but I have to say this hasn’t been my experience as a rent-controlled tenant or the experience of others I know. Of course there are bad actors out there (as there are in uncontrolled rental markets) but I think it’s a bit of a cynical take to imply that this is universal or even the norm with rent-controlled properties.
I do take the points about market shrinkage, tenant mobility and disincentivising investment on board though. Again, drawing on my own experience, I love my current place but if I did want to leave for something similar, the market rent for the few places available in this area is 40%+ higher so I’d probably feel compelled to stay put.
And renewables are now comfortably ahead of coal and lignite. It is worth remembering that 2022 is a bit of an outlier, because of the necessity to finding an immediate alternative to Russian gas, and before there were new imports from the US etc. So lignite use dropped about 25% last year, and has continued to drop this year. Renewables this year are probably going to be twice what coal plus lignite is.
Yes.
Stopping Solar is virtually impossible now. The cross over point when Solar + Storage (serious scale - multiple days of storage) costs less than many traditional power generating methods is not far off. For smaller scale storage, it has already happened. And the price of the solar cells, the associated electronics and storage all continue to decline.
What you suggest may still work for political purposes, ie if the goal is to look like you're doing something but there's nothing useful that you can do then you might want to have a rent control policy but make it so small that you get the favourable media coverage and only do a very teensy amount of real-world damage.
Just to add: This is the move Biden proposed. (I'm not sure if Kamala will still do it.) He advocated rent control but he only applies it to Big Corporations (or strictly speaking homeowners with more than 50 houses) which is a tiny proportion of the housing market, and if the rent control was a big deal then they'd restructure themselves into smaller corporations to avoid it. So he gets some media coverage but only does a tiny amount of real-world damage.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
And if we could produce tidal power stations for
1. about a quarter of the cost 2. less than half the construction time 3. that would have a producing lifespan at least three times as long 4. generating no waste products 5. causing no security risk 6. having no meltdown risk 7. are regenerative to the areas where they are built and 7. produce an identical amount of entirely predictable zero carbon power
you might rightly wonder why people have been pushing nuclear so hard.
There is no money in sensible, reliable, cheap power generation. Where there are enormous sums being spent, there are enormous paydays.
To be fair, Las Vegas has about 60x as many people in it as Billings, Montana
What is Trump doing in Montana though? Harris is presumably fund raising and was doing a tour of Nevada and Arizona which are in play and sliding her way. Montana? It's weird, to choose a word.
Yes, I was wondering about that too.
There are three possible explanations I can think of:
(1) This is the consequence of a fixed schedule. Trump's rallies were decided upon before Biden dropped out of the race, and at that time, it didn't seem like Trump needed to do too much because people would be voting against the incumbent. Indeed, keeping out the way with rallies in safe states seemed like a sensible option.
(2) Trump is retreating into his comfort zone. He doesn't want to go to places where there will be anything other than adulation, and Montana is about as red as they come.
(3) After the assassination attempt, Trump wants to be in places where he feels safe. Billings, Montana is such a place.
The thing is, I don't really buy any of these explanations. I think campaigns regularly change schedules to throw off assassins and to go where there is the greatest need for votes. And I think - if Trump just wanted adulation - he could do a rally at a megachurch in Texas or Alabama or wherever. Finally... fear? I'm not sure I buy that either.
What am I missing? Or is it simply that Trump is making all the decisions, rather than a professional campaigner manager, and he just isn't that aware of where matters? I simply don't get it.
I get control of the Senate would be important to him if he won the election and Jon Tester is the most likely to flip. After all, how can he appoint more lunatic, dishonest, corrupt judges if he does not have control of the Senate?
But it does seem to me the sort of add on luxury that a campaign that is cruising with plenty in hand might have thought of, the sort of campaign that Trump had against Biden, in fairness.
Right now, he needs to be in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada. He needs to win pretty much all of these to win. And he ain't going to win them in Montana.
I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.
And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc
What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies. In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.
So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?
Normal countries are independent.
Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.
In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.
Utter bollox, only subjugated countries are NOT Independent.
Perhaps Scotland should think about joining Sweden?
Having voted to stay in a union with their captors, they have clearly developed Stockholm Syndrome....
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
To which I would add: because the only way to change the rental level is for tht tenants to move, it encourages landlords to engage in unethical behavior in order to "encourage" tenants to move.
Thank you @Sandpit and @rcs1000 - particularly @Sandpit for your fuller account of the arguments against rent controls. (I’ll come back to you re nuclear power.)
You’ve both touched on behavioural aspects of the case against rent controls but I have to say this hasn’t been my experience as a rent-controlled tenant or the experience of others I know. Of course there are bad actors out there (as there are in uncontrolled rental markets) but I think it’s a bit of a cynical take to imply that this is universal or even the norm with rent-controlled properties.
I do take the points about market shrinkage, tenant mobility and disincentivising investment on board though. Again, drawing on my own experience, I love my current place but if I did want to leave for something similar, the market rent for the few places available in this area is 40%+ higher so I’d probably feel compelled to stay put.
Rent control is one of the few policies unites the field of economics because it’s so counter-productive. Worse, the effects are insidious & take years to play out, so the naysayers are easy to paint as doomsayers who just hate ordinary people.
As for NYT polls in PA, MI and WI today, some of the internal numbers seem improbable--42% for Harris among non-college whites, for one eg. If you adjust for them, you're probably looking at basically tied races (maybe a tick better for Harris in WI), which is where most, private, high-quality polling has them. Still, this is a big shift.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
The actual volume of high and medium level waste is tiny. A great deal of the headache of storage is to do with the avowed determination of those opposed to nuclear power to make storage impossible.
Cleaning up existing nuclear waste will take 100 years and cost at least £150 billion according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. This doesn't feel like a tiny problem, and I doubt the NDA is in the business of making storage impossible.
Much of that is to do with how the early U.K. nuclear program was run.
The stories of how Mountbatten steered Rickover away from the civil side of nuclear power are hilarious. Rickover was extremely safety conscious and would have flipped if he had seen the shit going on.
Another chunk is to do with the stupid kind of gold plating. Instead of spending money on better glassification, or one piece cask forging, bigger piles of paperwork. Sadly, it turns out that radionuclides are disgraceful in their attitude to official paperwork. They have absolutely no respect.
Yes and no. Those costs will have to be paid anyway. There's an argument for additional nuclear capacity that you might as well be hanged for a waste management sheep as well as a lamb. Nevertheless waste management is a massive problem and the case for nuclear struggles unless and until you sort it out.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
The actual volume of high and medium level waste is tiny. A great deal of the headache of storage is to do with the avowed determination of those opposed to nuclear power to make storage impossible.
Cleaning up existing nuclear waste will take 100 years and cost at least £150 billion according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. This doesn't feel like a tiny problem, and I doubt the NDA is in the business of making storage impossible.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
To which I would add: because the only way to change the rental level is for tht tenants to move, it encourages landlords to engage in unethical behavior in order to "encourage" tenants to move.
Thank you @Sandpit and @rcs1000 - particularly @Sandpit for your fuller account of the arguments against rent controls. (I’ll come back to you re nuclear power.)
You’ve both touched on behavioural aspects of the case against rent controls but I have to say this hasn’t been my experience as a rent-controlled tenant or the experience of others I know. Of course there are bad actors out there (as there are in uncontrolled rental markets) but I think it’s a bit of a cynical take to imply that this is universal or even the norm with rent-controlled properties.
I do take the points about market shrinkage, tenant mobility and disincentivising investment on board though. Again, drawing on my own experience, I love my current place but if I did want to leave for something similar, the market rent for the few places available in this area is 40%+ higher so I’d probably feel compelled to stay put.
The problem is that it doesn't take a large number of bad actors in an environment to poison it for everyone.
The Economist did some digging - during the height of the drug wars in Columbia, 90% of the police in Medellin and Cali were honest. They wouldn't take bribes from, and arrested the drug barons and their acolytes regularly. Despite being murdered for this at a startling rates. Yet the whole country was utterly corrupted.
This is an extreme example, but it shows something of how social systems work.
As for NYT polls in PA, MI and WI today, some of the internal numbers seem improbable--42% for Harris among non-college whites, for one eg. If you adjust for them, you're probably looking at basically tied races (maybe a tick better for Harris in WI), which is where most, private, high-quality polling has them. Still, this is a big shift.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
To which I would add: because the only way to change the rental level is for tht tenants to move, it encourages landlords to engage in unethical behavior in order to "encourage" tenants to move.
Thank you @Sandpit and @rcs1000 - particularly @Sandpit for your fuller account of the arguments against rent controls. (I’ll come back to you re nuclear power.)
You’ve both touched on behavioural aspects of the case against rent controls but I have to say this hasn’t been my experience as a rent-controlled tenant or the experience of others I know. Of course there are bad actors out there (as there are in uncontrolled rental markets) but I think it’s a bit of a cynical take to imply that this is universal or even the norm with rent-controlled properties.
I do take the points about market shrinkage, tenant mobility and disincentivising investment on board though. Again, drawing on my own experience, I love my current place but if I did want to leave for something similar, the market rent for the few places available in this area is 40%+ higher so I’d probably feel compelled to stay put.
Rent control is one of the few policies unites the field of economics because it’s so counter-productive. Worse, the effects are insidious & take years to play out, so the naysayers are easy to paint as doomsayers who just hate ordinary people.
Further, as the effects begin to bit, the universal response from the advocates of Rent Control is to blame the landlords. Which keeps the populist thing riding along for years.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
Former President Trump is setting off alarms among critics as he pushes the claim that Vice President Harris’s ascent to become the Democratic nominee is somehow unconstitutional, with some warning he could be laying the groundwork to contest an electoral defeat as he did in 2020.
Trump has repeatedly sought to cast Harris replacing President Biden as the Democratic nominee as nefarious, likening it to a “coup” and in recent days claiming it may be unconstitutional because she was not atop the ballot in the primary process.
Former President Trump is setting off alarms among critics as he pushes the claim that Vice President Harris’s ascent to become the Democratic nominee is somehow unconstitutional, with some warning he could be laying the groundwork to contest an electoral defeat as he did in 2020.
Trump has repeatedly sought to cast Harris replacing President Biden as the Democratic nominee as nefarious, likening it to a “coup” and in recent days claiming it may be unconstitutional because she was not atop the ballot in the primary process.
Well, it might work... but it's a tough sell, because in November, it will be Harris's name on the top of the ballot papers. And if people vote for Ms Harris, then they voted for Ms Harris.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
The actual volume of high and medium level waste is tiny. A great deal of the headache of storage is to do with the avowed determination of those opposed to nuclear power to make storage impossible.
Cleaning up existing nuclear waste will take 100 years and cost at least £150 billion according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. This doesn't feel like a tiny problem, and I doubt the NDA is in the business of making storage impossible.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
What you suggest may still work for political purposes, ie if the goal is to look like you're doing something but there's nothing useful that you can do then you might want to have a rent control policy but make it so small that you get the favourable media coverage and only do a very teensy amount of real-world damage.
Just to add: This is the move Biden proposed. (I'm not sure if Kamala will still do it.) He advocated rent control but he only applies it to Big Corporations (or strictly speaking homeowners with more than 50 houses) which is a tiny proportion of the housing market, and if the rent control was a big deal then they'd restructure themselves into smaller corporations to avoid it. So he gets some media coverage but only does a tiny amount of real-world damage.
ha ha ha....
A thing, especially in the US, but also seen here, is the *layered* outsourcing by big companies. With actual ownership of the layers often ending up with the big guys again.
So you have Evil Corp. But Evil Corp does very little itself. It subcontracts the Sharks with Laser beams to multiple companies. Who in turn subcontract down and down until som quite small companies at the bottom of the tree make angry, mutated sea bass and lasers. Then send them up the tree to be integrated and made into a product.
This -
1) Spreads the jobs around the country 2) Due to optics and legal limits, Evil Corp giving a huge cheque to the politicians is not how it rolls. Instead, all the companies in the pyramid donate to the politicians. Looks much nicer. Zillions of small cheques. 3) Lots of places in the pyramid for profit. 4) An especial US favourite. Companies run by women and certain minorities are prioritised for Federal contracts. So shell corporations are setup that get a contract and then contract it out to the Usual Suspects. If the women/minorities play nice they get given a tiny sliver of the pie.
So Biden is encouraging the creation of pyramids of sub companies, each owning a tiny fragment of the total holdings. In fact, this isn't far off the situation now.
To create legal and financial isolation, individual assets, like an apartment building are often held by a separate company. For extra fun, the assets of the company are mortgaged up to the hilt. So if the apartment building falls down or the company gets sued, there is no value to take out of the company. And it's owners are shielded from any liability...
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
As for NYT polls in PA, MI and WI today, some of the internal numbers seem improbable--42% for Harris among non-college whites, for one eg. If you adjust for them, you're probably looking at basically tied races (maybe a tick better for Harris in WI), which is where most, private, high-quality polling has them. Still, this is a big shift.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
No, it isn't. And it isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's about like minded people protecting each other from the consequences of what they do.
In the old days, we had the aristocracy circling the wagons around each other. The Old 10K.
What we have done, via *some* meritocracy, is to create a new ruling class who believe, deeply in the following
1) Their lack of specific knowledge about anything is part of their Right to Rule 2) They have no responsibility for the organisations they are responsible for 3) The defining characteristic is that abject failure nearly never ends in other than changing to a different job. Often with more money and responsibility.
In the case of the Post Office, it seems that
1) They knew nothing about what they were managing. 2) It was invidious to suggest they should know 3) All the bad stuff was done by Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs. Or something. THEM, in the shadows. 4) They did a really good job in difficult circumstance, and {lip trembles) it's been jolly tough.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
Common Purpose, the WEF and aligned organisations are very clear and public in their workings and purposes. To dismiss the idea of an elite 'working to protext each other' when such ideas were based around the secret meetings of the Bilderberg group or the masons etc. was acceptable. To do so now is wilful ignorance.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
No, it isn't. And it isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's about like minded people protecting each other from the consequences of what they do.
In the old days, we had the aristocracy circling the wagons around each other. The Old 10K.
What we have done, via *some* meritocracy, is to create a new ruling class who believe, deeply in the following
1) Their lack of specific knowledge about anything is part of their Right to Rule 2) They have no responsibility for the organisations they are responsible for 3) The defining characteristic is that abject failure nearly never ends in other than changing to a different job. Often with more money and responsibility.
In the case of the Post Office, it seems that
1) They knew nothing about what they were managing. 2) It was invidious to suggest they should know 3) All the bad stuff was done by Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs. Or something. THEM, in the shadows. 4) They did a really good job in difficult circumstance, and {lip trembles) it's been jolly tough.
If the Post Office executives are part of N10k I think they have the right to feel pretty upset about the lack of support they’ve been getting from the rest of the N10k.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
As for NYT polls in PA, MI and WI today, some of the internal numbers seem improbable--42% for Harris among non-college whites, for one eg. If you adjust for them, you're probably looking at basically tied races (maybe a tick better for Harris in WI), which is where most, private, high-quality polling has them. Still, this is a big shift.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The source is in the slide photo: More in Common polling
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
No, it isn't. And it isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's about like minded people protecting each other from the consequences of what they do.
In the old days, we had the aristocracy circling the wagons around each other. The Old 10K.
What we have done, via *some* meritocracy, is to create a new ruling class who believe, deeply in the following
1) Their lack of specific knowledge about anything is part of their Right to Rule 2) They have no responsibility for the organisations they are responsible for 3) The defining characteristic is that abject failure nearly never ends in other than changing to a different job. Often with more money and responsibility.
In the case of the Post Office, it seems that
1) They knew nothing about what they were managing. 2) It was invidious to suggest they should know 3) All the bad stuff was done by Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs. Or something. THEM, in the shadows. 4) They did a really good job in difficult circumstance, and {lip trembles) it's been jolly tough.
If the Post Office executives are part of N10k I think they have the right to feel pretty upset about the lack of support they’ve been getting from the rest of the N10k.
So far PO executives have suffered little to no actual consequences for putting 100s of people through the courts on false charges, probably bankrupting the PO in the process.
Oh wait: Paula Vennels gave up her gong before it was taken away from her.
Not exactly being tarred & feathered is it? I’d say they have done pretty well for a bunch of people who failed both the government and their underlings so comprehensively.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
No, it isn't. And it isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's about like minded people protecting each other from the consequences of what they do.
In the old days, we had the aristocracy circling the wagons around each other. The Old 10K.
What we have done, via *some* meritocracy, is to create a new ruling class who believe, deeply in the following
1) Their lack of specific knowledge about anything is part of their Right to Rule 2) They have no responsibility for the organisations they are responsible for 3) The defining characteristic is that abject failure nearly never ends in other than changing to a different job. Often with more money and responsibility.
In the case of the Post Office, it seems that
1) They knew nothing about what they were managing. 2) It was invidious to suggest they should know 3) All the bad stuff was done by Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs. Or something. THEM, in the shadows. 4) They did a really good job in difficult circumstance, and {lip trembles) it's been jolly tough.
If the Post Office executives are part of N10k I think they have the right to feel pretty upset about the lack of support they’ve been getting from the rest of the N10k.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The source is in the slide photo: More in Common polling
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
No, it isn't. And it isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's about like minded people protecting each other from the consequences of what they do.
In the old days, we had the aristocracy circling the wagons around each other. The Old 10K.
What we have done, via *some* meritocracy, is to create a new ruling class who believe, deeply in the following
1) Their lack of specific knowledge about anything is part of their Right to Rule 2) They have no responsibility for the organisations they are responsible for 3) The defining characteristic is that abject failure nearly never ends in other than changing to a different job. Often with more money and responsibility.
In the case of the Post Office, it seems that
1) They knew nothing about what they were managing. 2) It was invidious to suggest they should know 3) All the bad stuff was done by Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs. Or something. THEM, in the shadows. 4) They did a really good job in difficult circumstance, and {lip trembles) it's been jolly tough.
If the Post Office executives are part of N10k I think they have the right to feel pretty upset about the lack of support they’ve been getting from the rest of the N10k.
They have been getting *decades* of support. The instinctive lying within the system of government to protect the Post Office Management is a classic of the genre.
Many of the authors of this have *retired*. To their nice pensions and 1-day-a-year governance jobs.
The only reason they are in trouble now, is their stupidity, in relying on the lies to keep the coverup going. Which meant they piled up the evidence against themselves too high to ignore.
Despite publicly and repeatedly lying to the courts and parliament - not a single manager has been prosecuted.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
In the short term, yes. These are idiots and thugs and the riots did need to be quelled. In the longer term, these are often desperate idiots stirred up by online trolls, often abroad. Starmer & Yvette Cooper should consider springing the lot after a week or two. There is little to be gained by letting them stew inside.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Say you capped rent increases at 5% once per year I suspect the majority of rentals would see an increase of 5% once every year which is more than the average over the last decade or two (albeit possibly less than last 3 years in lots of places).
Ending no fault evictions is the biggest legislative change needed, not price controls. Enforcement of existing laws is also needed more than new laws here.
Rent control that works only works when the market is near surplus of property - when there is little or no need for rent control!
This occurs in a number of places where rent controls were a historic reaction to the big push (as a result of the mechanisation of agriculture) to the cities.
When this slackened off and population increase slowed down, the rent controls remained.
New York is a classic of the version where rent control was used to try and hod prices down, despite a severe shortage of housing. Many books have been written on this disaster.
It all comes back to creating a surplus of housing. In the housing markets that work, at any one time, 5%+ of properties are empty. In much of the UK, it is a fraction of 1%.
A problem in the UK, generally, is the systemic belief that unused capacity is wastage. Every hospital bed must have 100% occupancy. Every classroom 100% full.
It is an elementary feature of Operations Research that any system running at 99% is on the verge of collapse. What do people perceive about public services?
It’s taken 40 years of incremental efficiency savings cuts to get to our current state. It could take another 40 years to get back to sensible levels of capacity. It’s certainly not going to happen in only five years.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
No, it isn't. And it isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's about like minded people protecting each other from the consequences of what they do.
In the old days, we had the aristocracy circling the wagons around each other. The Old 10K.
What we have done, via *some* meritocracy, is to create a new ruling class who believe, deeply in the following
1) Their lack of specific knowledge about anything is part of their Right to Rule 2) They have no responsibility for the organisations they are responsible for 3) The defining characteristic is that abject failure nearly never ends in other than changing to a different job. Often with more money and responsibility.
In the case of the Post Office, it seems that
1) They knew nothing about what they were managing. 2) It was invidious to suggest they should know 3) All the bad stuff was done by Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs. Or something. THEM, in the shadows. 4) They did a really good job in difficult circumstance, and {lip trembles) it's been jolly tough.
If the Post Office executives are part of N10k I think they have the right to feel pretty upset about the lack of support they’ve been getting from the rest of the N10k.
So far PO executives have suffered little to no actual consequences for putting 100s of people through the courts on false charges, probably bankrupting the PO in the process.
Oh wait: Paula Vennels gave up her gong before it was taken away from her.
Not exactly being tarred & feathered is it? I’d say they have done pretty well for a bunch of people who failed both the government and their underlings so comprehensively.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Say you capped rent increases at 5% once per year I suspect the majority of rentals would see an increase of 5% once every year which is more than the average over the last decade or two (albeit possibly less than last 3 years in lots of places).
Ending no fault evictions is the biggest legislative change needed, not price controls. Enforcement of existing laws is also needed more than new laws here.
Rent control that works only works when the market is near surplus of property - when there is little or no need for rent control!
This occurs in a number of places where rent controls were a historic reaction to the big push (as a result of the mechanisation of agriculture) to the cities.
When this slackened off and population increase slowed down, the rent controls remained.
New York is a classic of the version where rent control was used to try and hod prices down, despite a severe shortage of housing. Many books have been written on this disaster.
It all comes back to creating a surplus of housing. In the housing markets that work, at any one time, 5%+ of properties are empty. In much of the UK, it is a fraction of 1%.
A problem in the UK, generally, is the systemic belief that unused capacity is wastage. Every hospital bed must have 100% occupancy. Every classroom 100% full.
It is an elementary feature of Operations Research that any system running at 99% is on the verge of collapse. What do people perceive about public services?
It’s taken 40 years of incremental efficiency savings cuts to get to our current state. It could take another 40 years to get back to sensible levels of capacity. It’s certainly not going to happen in only five years.
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
Comments
There was some recent footage of Trump doing that "waving and pointing to a life-long friend in the crowd" from the top of some aircraft steps. From the view behind him, though, it was obvious that he was waving to nobody. A couple of airport technicians getting on with their job - and that was it.
They could have course have just not spent the money on safety improvements, but if you want to tear up the safety regime that requires applying lessons learned when things go wrong then you can't simultaneously say "look how safe it is".
Having voted to stay in a union with their captors, they have clearly developed Stockholm Syndrome....
Supposedly.
I also think it might turn more on whether you are right or left handed. As a rightie I go clockwise.
I note Norway hasn’t bothered with it.
And if we could produce tidal power stations for
1. about a quarter of the cost
2. less than half the construction time
3. that would have a producing lifespan at least three times as long
4. generating no waste products
5. causing no security risk
6. having no meltdown risk
7. are regenerative to the areas where they are built and
7. produce an identical amount of entirely predictable zero carbon power
you might rightly wonder why people have been pushing nuclear so hard.
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
I believe it's 57 not 59 now, as they wanted to reduce the Scottish over-representation at Westminster slightly
Ending no fault evictions is the biggest legislative change needed, not price controls. Enforcement of existing laws is also needed more than new laws here.
A blanket "all rent controls always bad" is a fundamentalist kind of position.
https://archive.ph/zCY3z
https://youtu.be/bdyyin_9izI?t=50
CAS voids inquiry that elevated Chiles to podium
Romania’s Ana Barbosu now awarded bronze in floor
USA Gymnastics says it is ‘devastated’ by decision"
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/10/us-gymnast-jordan-chiles-may-lose-olympic-bronze-after-court-ruling
This occurs in a number of places where rent controls were a historic reaction to the big push (as a result of the mechanisation of agriculture) to the cities.
When this slackened off and population increase slowed down, the rent controls remained.
New York is a classic of the version where rent control was used to try and hod prices down, despite a severe shortage of housing. Many books have been written on this disaster.
It all comes back to creating a surplus of housing. In the housing markets that work, at any one time, 5%+ of properties are empty. In much of the UK, it is a fraction of 1%.
A problem in the UK, generally, is the systemic belief that unused capacity is wastage. Every hospital bed must have 100% occupancy. Every classroom 100% full.
It is an elementary feature of Operations Research that any system running at 99% is on the verge of collapse. What do people perceive about public services?
London is a huge distortion one way or the other all the time in the data, which changes national average rents by around 20-25% (from memory), so using regional data is quite important for any serious analysis.
What you suggest may still work for political purposes, ie if the goal is to look like you're doing something but there's nothing useful that you can do then you might want to have a rent control policy but make it so small that you get the favourable media coverage and only do a very teensy amount of real-world damage.
There are three possible explanations I can think of:
(1) This is the consequence of a fixed schedule. Trump's rallies were decided upon before Biden dropped out of the race, and at that time, it didn't seem like Trump needed to do too much because people would be voting against the incumbent. Indeed, keeping out the way with rallies in safe states seemed like a sensible option.
(2) Trump is retreating into his comfort zone. He doesn't want to go to places where there will be anything other than adulation, and Montana is about as red as they come.
(3) After the assassination attempt, Trump wants to be in places where he feels safe. Billings, Montana is such a place.
The thing is, I don't really buy any of these explanations. I think campaigns regularly change schedules to throw off assassins and to go where there is the greatest need for votes. And I think - if Trump just wanted adulation - he could do a rally at a megachurch in Texas or Alabama or wherever. Finally... fear? I'm not sure I buy that either.
What am I missing? Or is it simply that Trump is making all the decisions, rather than a professional campaigner manager, and he just isn't that aware of where matters? I simply don't get it.
It's an example of Populist Politics - warning to @TheScreamingEagles, header incoming.
Again, the history of Reenrol Control in New York is instructive.
Or indeed the UK.
Peter Rachman made himself an absolute fortune by buying properties with rent control tenants and then making their lives a misery.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/23/uk-nuclear-waste-cleanup-decommissioning-power-stations
https://unherd.com/2024/08/the-machiavellian-cause-of-britains-disorder
The latest (2023) numbers for electricity production in Germany are here: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html
And renewables are now comfortably ahead of coal and lignite. It is worth remembering that 2022 is a bit of an outlier, because of the necessity to finding an immediate alternative to Russian gas, and before there were new imports from the US etc. So lignite use dropped about 25% last year, and has continued to drop this year. Renewables this year are probably going to be twice what coal plus lignite is.
The stories of how Mountbatten steered Rickover away from the civil side of nuclear power are hilarious. Rickover was extremely safety conscious and would have flipped if he had seen the shit going on.
Another chunk is to do with the stupid kind of gold plating. Instead of spending money on better glassification, or one piece cask forging, bigger piles of paperwork. Sadly, it turns out that radionuclides are disgraceful in their attitude to official paperwork. They have absolutely no respect.
He says a 6-12 (on the clock face) gentle paddle motion. Like holding station in a Canadaian Canoe (that's my contribution).
You’ve both touched on behavioural aspects of the case against rent controls but I have to say this hasn’t been my experience as a rent-controlled tenant or the experience of others I know. Of course there are bad actors out there (as there are in uncontrolled rental markets) but I think it’s a bit of a cynical take to imply that this is universal or even the norm with rent-controlled properties.
I do take the points about market shrinkage, tenant mobility and disincentivising investment on board though. Again, drawing on my own experience, I love my current place but if I did want to leave for something similar, the market rent for the few places available in this area is 40%+ higher so I’d probably feel compelled to stay put.
Stopping Solar is virtually impossible now. The cross over point when Solar + Storage (serious scale - multiple days of storage) costs less than many traditional power generating methods is not far off. For smaller scale storage, it has already happened. And the price of the solar cells, the associated electronics and storage all continue to decline.
But it does seem to me the sort of add on luxury that a campaign that is cruising with plenty in hand might have thought of, the sort of campaign that Trump had against Biden, in fairness.
Right now, he needs to be in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada. He needs to win pretty much all of these to win. And he ain't going to win them in Montana.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
As for NYT polls in PA, MI and WI today, some of the internal numbers seem improbable--42% for Harris among non-college whites, for one eg. If you adjust for them, you're probably looking at basically tied races (maybe a tick better for Harris in WI), which is where most, private, high-quality polling has them.
Still, this is a big shift.
https://x.com/davidaxelrod/status/1822276163839946839
https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power
The Economist did some digging - during the height of the drug wars in Columbia, 90% of the police in Medellin and Cali were honest. They wouldn't take bribes from, and arrested the drug barons and their acolytes regularly. Despite being murdered for this at a startling rates. Yet the whole country was utterly corrupted.
This is an extreme example, but it shows something of how social systems work.
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
Trump has repeatedly sought to cast Harris replacing President Biden as the Democratic nominee as nefarious, likening it to a “coup” and in recent days claiming it may be unconstitutional because she was not atop the ballot in the primary process.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4821089-donald-trump-kamala-harris-unconstitutional/
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition.
Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties.
Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not.
Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
Howerver for me logistics require TIF, as it enables you to fill the cup with the correct mix
A thing, especially in the US, but also seen here, is the *layered* outsourcing by big companies. With actual ownership of the layers often ending up with the big guys again.
So you have Evil Corp. But Evil Corp does very little itself. It subcontracts the Sharks with Laser beams to multiple companies. Who in turn subcontract down and down until som quite small companies at the bottom of the tree make angry, mutated sea bass and lasers. Then send them up the tree to be integrated and made into a product.
This -
1) Spreads the jobs around the country
2) Due to optics and legal limits, Evil Corp giving a huge cheque to the politicians is not how it rolls. Instead, all the companies in the pyramid donate to the politicians. Looks much nicer. Zillions of small cheques.
3) Lots of places in the pyramid for profit.
4) An especial US favourite. Companies run by women and certain minorities are prioritised for Federal contracts. So shell corporations are setup that get a contract and then contract it out to the Usual Suspects. If the women/minorities play nice they get given a tiny sliver of the pie.
So Biden is encouraging the creation of pyramids of sub companies, each owning a tiny fragment of the total holdings. In fact, this isn't far off the situation now.
To create legal and financial isolation, individual assets, like an apartment building are often held by a separate company. For extra fun, the assets of the company are mortgaged up to the hilt. So if the apartment building falls down or the company gets sued, there is no value to take out of the company. And it's owners are shielded from any liability...
Odd?
It's about like minded people protecting each other from the consequences of what they do.
In the old days, we had the aristocracy circling the wagons around each other. The Old 10K.
What we have done, via *some* meritocracy, is to create a new ruling class who believe, deeply in the following
1) Their lack of specific knowledge about anything is part of their Right to Rule
2) They have no responsibility for the organisations they are responsible for
3) The defining characteristic is that abject failure nearly never ends in other than changing to a different job. Often with more money and responsibility.
In the case of the Post Office, it seems that
1) They knew nothing about what they were managing.
2) It was invidious to suggest they should know
3) All the bad stuff was done by Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs. Or something. THEM, in the shadows.
4) They did a really good job in difficult circumstance, and {lip trembles) it's been jolly tough.
http://www.thechestnut.com/flumps/pootle.jpg
There's something about the poses, that reminds me of Norman Rockwell. "The Problem We All Live With" etc
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13717465/Katie-Price-escort-bankruptcy-hearing.html?ito=windows-widget-push-notification&ci=591429
Twenty years too late for both of us I fear, Katie.
Oh wait: Paula Vennels gave up her gong before it was taken away from her.
Not exactly being tarred & feathered is it? I’d say they have done pretty well for a bunch of people who failed both the government and their underlings so comprehensively.
Many of the authors of this have *retired*. To their nice pensions and 1-day-a-year governance jobs.
The only reason they are in trouble now, is their stupidity, in relying on the lies to keep the coverup going. Which meant they piled up the evidence against themselves too high to ignore.
Despite publicly and repeatedly lying to the courts and parliament - not a single manager has been prosecuted.
I'd say they got a lot out of their "protection"
'NHS staff told to ask men if they are pregnant before X-rays'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/10/nhs-staff-asking-men-if-pregnant-before-x-ray-scans/
https://youtu.be/AC9SF7TOyHQ?si=R7_5JRwbsY-JRXDH&t=46
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
That's quads. At least.