Persepolis Now – looking at the future of Iran – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Haley probably would be, provided Trump hadn't gone third party if she had only narrowly beaten him in the primariesTheuniondivvie said:
What particular insight do you have on your hypothesis that this is a conscious attempt to ‘appeal to a particular type of US voter’ rather than just Trump being incapable of doing anything other than poop out whatever happens to be floating through his cerebral cortex?TOPPING said:
Again you show your naivety. You say his rhetoric is absurd but it isn't in the context of attempting to appeal to a particular type of US voter. Of which there are millions. Why is trying to appeal to millions of voters whose votes you want "absurd".kamski said:
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?TOPPING said:
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.kamski said:
What's your point?TOPPING said:
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?Cookie said:
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.TOPPING said:
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.Nigelb said:
Nuanced. Good one.Sandpit said:
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.DavidL said:The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Just admit it, he's batshit.
Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Do you agree with the regularly aired idea that any non batshit GOP candidate (eg Haley) would be romping towards the White House atm?1 -
Or the Belgian foreign minister?noneoftheabove said:
Justin Trudeau?TOPPING said:
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.Cookie said:
Charged with what?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=110 -
Before 2019 - God it was a stretch. Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, one of us would have to drop the kids off at breakfast club, and the other leave work bang on 5 to get home for pick up from after school club. There was absolutely no slack in the day whatsoever and very little room for flexibility. And every day like that cost us £45 (£5 per child for breakfast club, £10 per child for after school club). If it was hard for us with our middle class incomes and our accommodating employers, how does it work for others? It just doesn't, I guess.boulay said:
Yes - schools should keep pupils until six pm and feed them three meals per day. Not only does it ensure all kids get fed well but it gives time for activities or homework in place rather than in a chaotic home environment, it allows more parents to work full time which is good for them and the economy and reduces the chances of children getting into trouble where they leave school in the afternoon and wait for a few hours until parents get home.Malmesbury said:
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.eek said:
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food isMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
1) has the child had breakfast
2) is the child getting lunch
The extra cost of staffing and feeding would be worth it for the results. I’m completely guessing that last statement.
Nowadays we a) largely work from home and b) the kids are older so need much less managing, and I often look back with wonder that we got through it at all.6 -
Ten years is not as long ago as it used to be...Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=110 -
It’s striking how often peoples’ ethical values coincide with their business interests.Morris_Dancer said:Labour donor urges the party of government to stop schools having to serve (some) meat and instead serve food that coincides with his personal ethics and business interests: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crejwrypryyo
5 -
Good morningHYUFD said:
For individuals maybe, for couples notPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
The problem is that it feeds into maintaining high prices and puts the borrowers at risk of negative equity if the market falls, which by the way happened in the 2008 crisis
Frankly it is irresponsible lending
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/subprime-mortgage-crisis/#:~:text=The subprime mortgage crisis was,to the global financial system.1 -
Supervised by whom?Malmesbury said:
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.eek said:
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food isMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
1) has the child had breakfast
2) is the child getting lunch2 -
Justin Welby isn't *vaguely nice*. He's a guilt-ridden buffoon who has bought a job-lot of Guardianista opinions to atone for his previous life and cannot now be bothered to think through the logical consequences from good intentions to the road to hell.Malmesbury said:
The bishops in the House of Lords serve a vital role.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which part of micro state do you not understand?HYUFD said:
No the Vatican city and Andorra too. Indeed the Vatican city head of state is a cleric, the Pope.TheScreamingEagles said:I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.
As a Whig and Radical Liberal non Tory no surprise to see you wanting to remove the bishops and remaining hereditaries from the Lords. As a proper Tory though I of course want to keep both.
Starmer though had a manifesto commitment only to remove the remaining hereditary peers as they are mostly Tories. He will keep the diocesan bishops in the Lords, not least as they supported Labour in opposing the last Conservative government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers. Indeed there was no commitment to any elected element of the upper house in the Labour manifesto at all
Carrying the mission of the CoE into politics.
That is, the removal of religion from public discourse. And it's replacement by weak cups of tea and vague niceness.
If the Bishops are removed from the Lords, they might be replaced by people who believe in God or something dangerous like that.
1 -
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.Taz said:
From the BBC article about itTOPPING said:
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.Cookie said:
Charged with what?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""0 -
And then you can charge VAT.TimS said:
Provide beds too and you’ve got a boarding school.Malmesbury said:
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.eek said:
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food isMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
1) has the child had breakfast
2) is the child getting lunch
2 -
Staff. Paid for with money. Which will need to be found.Fysics_Teacher said:
Supervised by whom?Malmesbury said:
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.eek said:
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food isMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
1) has the child had breakfast
2) is the child getting lunch1 -
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.kamski said:
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?TOPPING said:
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.kamski said:
What's your point?TOPPING said:
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?Cookie said:
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.TOPPING said:
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.Nigelb said:
Nuanced. Good one.Sandpit said:
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.DavidL said:The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Just admit it, he's batshit.
Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.1 -
-
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?3 -
Surely one for teaching assistants ?Fysics_Teacher said:
Supervised by whom?Malmesbury said:
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.eek said:
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food isMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
1) has the child had breakfast
2) is the child getting lunch0 -
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.1 -
Nonsense.Sean_F said:
It’s striking how often peoples’ ethical values coincide with their business interests.Morris_Dancer said:Labour donor urges the party of government to stop schools having to serve (some) meat and instead serve food that coincides with his personal ethics and business interests: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crejwrypryyo
I have a moral duty to sell you some CDO^30 -
Yes let's have some managed decline (aka an embrace of realism) in an atmosphere of vague niceness.Stuartinromford said:
And, lest we forget, the world would be an awful lot better than it is if there were more vague niceness about.Malmesbury said:
The bishops in the House of Lords serve a vital role.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which part of micro state do you not understand?HYUFD said:
No the Vatican city and Andorra too. Indeed the Vatican city head of state is a cleric, the Pope.TheScreamingEagles said:I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.
As a Whig and Radical Liberal non Tory no surprise to see you wanting to remove the bishops and remaining hereditaries from the Lords. As a proper Tory though I of course want to keep both.
Starmer though had a manifesto commitment only to remove the remaining hereditary peers as they are mostly Tories. He will keep the diocesan bishops in the Lords, not least as they supported Labour in opposing the last Conservative government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers. Indeed there was no commitment to any elected element of the upper house in the Labour manifesto at all
Carrying the mission of the CoE into politics.
That is, the removal of religion from public discourse. And it's replacement by weak cups of tea and vague niceness.
If the Bishops are removed from the Lords, they might be replaced by people who believe in God or something dangerous like that.0 -
That’s the alternative view.Cookie said:
Justin Welby isn't *vaguely nice*. He's a guilt-ridden buffoon who has bought a job-lot of Guardianista opinions to atone for his previous life and cannot now be bothered to think through the logical consequences from good intentions to the road to hell.Malmesbury said:
The bishops in the House of Lords serve a vital role.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which part of micro state do you not understand?HYUFD said:
No the Vatican city and Andorra too. Indeed the Vatican city head of state is a cleric, the Pope.TheScreamingEagles said:I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.
As a Whig and Radical Liberal non Tory no surprise to see you wanting to remove the bishops and remaining hereditaries from the Lords. As a proper Tory though I of course want to keep both.
Starmer though had a manifesto commitment only to remove the remaining hereditary peers as they are mostly Tories. He will keep the diocesan bishops in the Lords, not least as they supported Labour in opposing the last Conservative government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers. Indeed there was no commitment to any elected element of the upper house in the Labour manifesto at all
Carrying the mission of the CoE into politics.
That is, the removal of religion from public discourse. And it's replacement by weak cups of tea and vague niceness.
If the Bishops are removed from the Lords, they might be replaced by people who believe in God or something dangerous like that.
It is quite impressive the way he is running the CoE into the ground.
When he leaves his job, I understand there are a number of former Boeing execs, with the moral value of Paula Vennells, looking for a role?1 -
Very trueFysics_Teacher said:
Ten years is not as long ago as it used to be...Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
0 -
.
You probably deserve a non rhetorical reply to that (and apologies for hijacking the thread with the Trump spat).Sandpit said:
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.DavidL said:The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Crime figures are almost always problematic and disputed - we see the same thing here.
But the murder rate is pretty consistently reported, and hard to manipulate.
It was unchanged last year in San Francisco (and fell slightly, nationally)
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/crime-2023-trends-san-francisco-18585737.php0 -
Starmer is about the only person unappealing enough to make hereditary peers and archbishops popular just by virtue of opposing them.TheScreamingEagles said:I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.3 -
I’m an unwoke bloke. That language is all red flags to me. Run away from the dangerous asshole, ladies.TimS said:
It’s pretty classic controlling partner language.Barnesian said:
This is the quote we are talking about:TOPPING said:
Again you show your naivety. You say his rhetoric is absurd but it isn't in the context of attempting to appeal to a particular type of US voter. Of which there are millions. Why is trying to appeal to millions of voters whose votes you want "absurd".kamski said:
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?TOPPING said:
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.kamski said:
What's your point?TOPPING said:
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?Cookie said:
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.TOPPING said:
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.Nigelb said:
Nuanced. Good one.Sandpit said:
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.DavidL said:The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Just admit it, he's batshit.
Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion."
If he is trying to appeal to women already in the cult, then it probably works but why do that if they are already committed?
If he is trying to appeal to uncommitted women, I'll hazard a guess that it won't work. Just a guess that most non-follower women will find his remark creepy, absurd even.4 -
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.DavidL said:
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?0 -
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.1 -
1. They spend a decade paying off someone else's home loanAnabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
2. Laws start to change to balance things out between landlords and renters
3. Landlords decide to sell if they can't exploit
4. Establishment allow buyers to increase debt pushing up the property prices
5. Landlords get the extra multiple of salary as a windfall on sale
6. Buyers are supposed to feel grateful for taking on extra debt
Yes it is absolute madness.1 -
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.2 -
Yup. So you have, in effect, doubled the redundancy risk to the mortgage. As a start.Pulpstar said:
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.0 -
Our local 'private' school has a sign outside "What if every night could be a sleepover?"TimS said:
Provide beds too and you’ve got a boarding school.Malmesbury said:
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.eek said:
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food isMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
1) has the child had breakfast
2) is the child getting lunch2 -
So the bank - how do couples on 50K repay that amount of loan?Sandpit said:
That can’t possibly go very horribly wrong for the bank. Definitely not at all.Pulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.0 -
I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).2 -
This year's County Championship finishes on 29th September. That's getting very late, and all to make space for The Hundred, which only vaguely resembles cricket.DavidL said:
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?2 -
Thank-you for the header, Gareth.5
-
It is rather bleak up here ahead of the ODI at the Riverside today. At least yesterdays heavy rain has abated.OldKingCole said:
This year's County Championship finishes on 29th September. That's getting very late, and all to make space for The Hundred, which only vaguely resembles cricket.DavidL said:
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?0 -
Hey, but at least they have a Barratt box over their heads...Pulpstar said:
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.0 -
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.Northern_Al said:
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.DavidL said:
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?0 -
There is no reason why the Championship cannot play alongside the hundred. Yes Counties might lose a few players, but actually there are intended to be many overseas stars in the hundred, and it would test the depths of the championships squads a little.OldKingCole said:
This year's County Championship finishes on 29th September. That's getting very late, and all to make space for The Hundred, which only vaguely resembles cricket.DavidL said:
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?0 -
Surely the fixture at the most northerly ODI ground in the country should be scheduled prior to the autumnal equinoxturbotubbs said:
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.Northern_Al said:
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.DavidL said:
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?
. 3 -
Ignoring the cost for the moment, I think it's a good idea. All schools, or just primaries?Pulpstar said:
Surely one for teaching assistants ?Fysics_Teacher said:
Supervised by whom?Malmesbury said:
I've long advocated the simple solution - work towards all schools providing breakfast, lunch and probably diner. Aside from feeding the hungry, the effect on parents who actually care will also be massive - the current school day doesn't take into account both parents working.eek said:
Biggest problem for most primary school headteachers regarding food isMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Romford, I broadly agree with that but would argue that there's another dimension here which is that diet is incredibly important, particularly for growing children. Imposing a vegan/vegetarian diet on people against their will is not a good thing.
1) has the child had breakfast
2) is the child getting lunch0 -
That was the position my wife and I were in when we bought our first house in 1990. I was a 2nd year teacher earning 750 after tax etc. our mortgage and insurance was identical. Loan was 76000.Pulpstar said:
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
Happy days...
1 -
I think the rate ends up being £1350 or so looking at the nationwide calculator and the 35 year mortgage you would be starting with.Malmesbury said:
Yup. So you have, in effect, doubled the redundancy risk to the mortgage. As a start.Pulpstar said:
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
0 -
You keep on ignoring that repeatedly SKS declares gifts late, and it looks as though Rayner has (at best) incorrectly declared them.Anabobazina said:I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
Sort your own side out.0 -
Technically yes, but with a 12.30 start, if it goes the distance, given slow over rates, the second innings won't start until around 4.30-5 - an 8pm or even later finish is quite likely. They'll know this and I suspect the floodlights will be on for all the second innings.turbotubbs said:
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.Northern_Al said:
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.DavidL said:
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?1 -
Well the point is there are two earners, so their take-home is £1772.58 x 2, right? (I assume your calculations are right). So they take home £3545.16 a month of which just under half goes on a mortgage.Pulpstar said:
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
What's the problem? They'd probably pay that in rent (if not more).1 -
I'm not sure the start of the 90s is a model to replicate at historically benign/average (Albeit a bit higher than a few years back) BoE ratesDaveyboy1961 said:
That was the position my wife and I were in when we bought our first house in 1990. I was a 2nd year teacher earning 750 after tax etc. our mortgage and insurance was identical. Loan was 76000.Pulpstar said:
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
Happy days... 1 -
Hmmm. A 50k pa household is ~1/3 below two national average salaries, so in those terms is something like 30% income percentile - approximately and ignoring all kinds of factors.Malmesbury said:
Yup. So you have, in effect, doubled the redundancy risk to the mortgage. As a start.Pulpstar said:
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
I wonder if shared-ownership is due for a return?
Nationwide current Standard Rate is 7.74%, but they are offering eg 5 year fixed rates down to just over 4% on remortgages, and 10 year fixed rates at 4.7%. Some deals a little below that.
I make that a 2-3% Fizzy Lizzy and current circumstances premium.
Much will depend on the escape-to-switch cost.
From my day job, LLs will have a 2% LANDLORD !!!! premium over that.0 -
The normal rule of thumb is that a household should try not to spend more than one-third of their income on rent/mortgage payments.Barnesian said:
Apply it to UK government tax income of £0.83tr gives a borrowing figure of £5tr.Pulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
We're only half way there at £2.7tr. Plenty of headroom.
Do you really think it would be sensible for one-third of government tax revenue to be spent on servicing the national debt? What spending would you cut to afford the extra £bns of debt interest payments?1 -
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.1 -
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry aboutAnabobazina said:
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.Taz said:
From the BBC article about itTOPPING said:
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.Cookie said:
Charged with what?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""2 -
When evangelical Welby goes he will almost certainly be replaced by an Anglo Catholic on the usual rotation and they tend to be more intellectual and theologian eg Rowan Williams and Robert RuncieMalmesbury said:
That’s the alternative view.Cookie said:
Justin Welby isn't *vaguely nice*. He's a guilt-ridden buffoon who has bought a job-lot of Guardianista opinions to atone for his previous life and cannot now be bothered to think through the logical consequences from good intentions to the road to hell.Malmesbury said:
The bishops in the House of Lords serve a vital role.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which part of micro state do you not understand?HYUFD said:
No the Vatican city and Andorra too. Indeed the Vatican city head of state is a cleric, the Pope.TheScreamingEagles said:I think it is true that ourselves and Iran are the only two countries in the world (other than microstates) that have unelected clergy in their parliament.
Hopefully Starmer kicks out the bishops at the same time as the hereditaries.
As a Whig and Radical Liberal non Tory no surprise to see you wanting to remove the bishops and remaining hereditaries from the Lords. As a proper Tory though I of course want to keep both.
Starmer though had a manifesto commitment only to remove the remaining hereditary peers as they are mostly Tories. He will keep the diocesan bishops in the Lords, not least as they supported Labour in opposing the last Conservative government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers. Indeed there was no commitment to any elected element of the upper house in the Labour manifesto at all
Carrying the mission of the CoE into politics.
That is, the removal of religion from public discourse. And it's replacement by weak cups of tea and vague niceness.
If the Bishops are removed from the Lords, they might be replaced by people who believe in God or something dangerous like that.
It is quite impressive the way he is running the CoE into the ground.
When he leaves his job, I understand there are a number of former Boeing execs, with the moral value of Paula Vennells, looking for a role?0 -
My mortgage rate was 10.75%. crippling.Pulpstar said:
I'm not sure the start of the 90s is a model to replicate at historically benign/average (Albeit a bit higher than a few years back) BoE ratesDaveyboy1961 said:
That was the position my wife and I were in when we bought our first house in 1990. I was a 2nd year teacher earning 750 after tax etc. our mortgage and insurance was identical. Loan was 76000.Pulpstar said:
£25,000 take home pay is £1772.58, repayments on a 25 yr £300k @ 5% are £1754 - so if a couple is earning £25k each then that means the entirety of someone's pay are virtually swallowed whole in mortgage payments if a 25 year term is taken !Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
Happy days...
0 -
Thanks @Garethofthevale for a very interesting read!3
-
If she did it now would you support her being fined £1,000 and reprimanded?malcolmg said:
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry aboutAnabobazina said:
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.Taz said:
From the BBC article about itTOPPING said:
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.Cookie said:
Charged with what?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""0 -
Except that's not what you replied to.TOPPING said:
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.kamski said:
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?TOPPING said:
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.kamski said:
What's your point?TOPPING said:
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?Cookie said:
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.TOPPING said:
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.Nigelb said:
Nuanced. Good one.Sandpit said:
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.DavidL said:The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Just admit it, he's batshit.
Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
My post was in response to Sandpit saying Trump was being "nuanced". In that context, your reply was nonsense.0 -
Was it at a 6* multiple of your and your wife's salary though :E ?Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
This news is happy days for existing homeowners as Nationwide is basically expanding the money supply for houses - which will push prices up
. The only country madder than us with it's housing is Australia and their -ve gearing I think. 1 -
It is more a risk for the bank or building society lending a la 2008, at worst even if theyBig_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningHYUFD said:
For individuals maybe, for couples notPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
The problem is that it feeds into maintaining high prices and puts the borrowers at risk of negative equity if the market falls, which by the way happened in the 2008 crisis
Frankly it is irresponsible lending
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/subprime-mortgage-crisis/#:~:text=The subprime mortgage crisis was,to the global financial system.
could no longer afford repayments the
borrowing couple would have
built up some capital in it
when sold in most cases rather than just renting. Negative equity only would occur if a massive slump in house prices0 -
Pre-supposes England can post any sort of total....Northern_Al said:
Technically yes, but with a 12.30 start, if it goes the distance, given slow over rates, the second innings won't start until around 4.30-5 - an 8pm or even later finish is quite likely. They'll know this and I suspect the floodlights will be on for all the second innings.turbotubbs said:
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.Northern_Al said:
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.DavidL said:
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?0 -
Again – AGAIN! – you (deliberately?) misrepresent me. It's a good idea to check someone's posts before you accuse them of hypocrisy or deliberate omission. I have literally said – time and again on here – that Sir Keir made an error by declaring Lady Vic's clothing allowance late. I wrote that many times without prompting from you or anyone else.JosiasJessop said:
You keep on ignoring that repeatedly SKS declares gifts late, and it looks as though Rayner has (at best) incorrectly declared them.Anabobazina said:I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
Sort your own side out.
He did declare that when he realised his mistake and – crucially – before there was any media interest, but yes it was late nevertheless.
But I have written that numerous times. Can't you read?0 -
You said his comments were batshit. Is what I was replying to.Nigelb said:
Except that's not what you replied to.TOPPING said:
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.kamski said:
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?TOPPING said:
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.kamski said:
What's your point?TOPPING said:
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?Cookie said:
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.TOPPING said:
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.Nigelb said:
Nuanced. Good one.Sandpit said:
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.DavidL said:The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Just admit it, he's batshit.
Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
My post was in response to Sandpit saying Trump was being "nuanced". In that context, your reply was nonsense.0 -
Truth be told I can't remember what we were making in those days. I think it might have been 4-5 times our salaries but that's just a guess TBH.Pulpstar said:
Was it at a 6* multiple of your and your wife's salary though :E ?Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
This news is happy days for existing homeowners as Nationwide is basically expanding the money supply for houses - which will push prices up. The only country madder than us with it's housing is Australia and their -ve gearing I think.0 -
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.0 -
If renting they would be in same position , as long as they have a depositMalmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.1 -
Did you miss my 'if'?MarqueeMark said:
Pre-supposes England can post any sort of total....Northern_Al said:
Technically yes, but with a 12.30 start, if it goes the distance, given slow over rates, the second innings won't start until around 4.30-5 - an 8pm or even later finish is quite likely. They'll know this and I suspect the floodlights will be on for all the second innings.turbotubbs said:
Not a day-night fixture though, so intended to be in daylight.Northern_Al said:
It must have passed you by, but we have floodlights these days.DavidL said:
Finding a batting line up that can survive 50 overs against Australia would be a good start.Sandpit said:
Don’t the cricket authorities have more important things to look at, than what people were wearing to fancy dress parties a decade ago when cultural standards were perhaps a little different from what they are today?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
Talking of which today’s match starts at 12.30. I mean it could in theory last 100 overs. Does it also escape their notice that the nights are drawing in? Who is likely to be batting at dusk?0 -
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.4 -
But you didn't 'call' Nigel on it.TOPPING said:
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.kamski said:
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?TOPPING said:
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.kamski said:
What's your point?TOPPING said:
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?Cookie said:
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.TOPPING said:
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.Nigelb said:
Nuanced. Good one.Sandpit said:
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.DavidL said:The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Just admit it, he's batshit.
Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
Nigel report something that Trump said, suggesting it was Batshit.
You replied saying 'are you new to political rhetoric?'
Now the inference I took from that was that you were suggesting this is just the sort of things politicians say. I suggested it was outside the bounds of that. To which you hinted at other examples of mad things that Trump has said. Which only means it's not outside the bounds of normality *for Trump*, not that it's not outside the bounds of normal political rhetoric.
Perhaps what you meant was 'are you new to Donald Trump's political rhetoric'?
If your point is that Trump says a lot of things and that some American voters are quite receptive to it, then yes I agree with you. But the implication of what you said was that Trumpian political rhetoric is just normal political rhetoric.
But as I say, perhaps you just missed the words "Donald Trump's" out of "are you new to political rhetoric?"0 -
So says 'Lost Password', the geezer on the internet. And, he's probably got a point. But a young couple who want their own home aren't going to worry too much about 'the economy' are they? They just want their own home that they can paint and furnish and start a life together, without paying some chiselling landlord even more in rent each month to do fuck-all (but moan when they put some shelves up).LostPassword said:
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.1 -
When we bought our first house, in 1963, I paid the mortgage out of my salary, and my wife stayed at home to look after things there, including our first child. And I wasn't earning a fortune; I was running a small suburban pharmacy.LostPassword said:
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.3 -
The key thing is the size of the deficit - that is, the extra debt taken on in the year - vs the rate of GDP growth. If one equals the other then our debt to GDP ratio stays the same.LostPassword said:
The normal rule of thumb is that a household should try not to spend more than one-third of their income on rent/mortgage payments.Barnesian said:
Apply it to UK government tax income of £0.83tr gives a borrowing figure of £5tr.Pulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
We're only half way there at £2.7tr. Plenty of headroom.
Do you really think it would be sensible for one-third of government tax revenue to be spent on servicing the national debt? What spending would you cut to afford the extra £bns of debt interest payments?
Remember this is nominal GDP growth. Ie before stripping out inflation. Current nominal growth is about 4.5%.
You borrow ideally to fund growth. It then all depends on whether an extra 1% of borrowing each year will drive more or less than an extra 1% of nominal GDP growth.1 -
It is completely and wilfully missing the point to suggest that this is an argument about procedure, and that whether Keir followed 'procedure' or slipped up on it is the substantive issue. It isn't, and it is disingenuous in the extreme of Sir Sponger to suggest that he went after Boris over procedure - he went after him because it looked like Boris was for sale, just like it now appears that SKS is for sale. This story is also about one individual, and the power they clearly weild at the heart of Government, which they have bought. Whether or not it was declared is immaterial - every system can be stretched and abused, and the reason why things need to be declared is so that the public can see when that point has been reached.Anabobazina said:
Again – AGAIN! – you (deliberately?) misrepresent me. It's a good idea to check someone's posts before you accuse them of hypocrisy or deliberate omission. I have literally said – time and again on here – that Sir Keir made an error by declaring Lady Vic's clothing allowance late. I wrote that many times without prompting from you or anyone else.JosiasJessop said:
You keep on ignoring that repeatedly SKS declares gifts late, and it looks as though Rayner has (at best) incorrectly declared them.Anabobazina said:I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
Sort your own side out.
He did declare that when he realised his mistake and – crucially – before there was any media interest, but yes it was late nevertheless.
But I have written that numerous times. Can't you read?1 -
Nope, Bollox political correctness by some arseholes. These c!owns need to get a life rather than pick little snippets of history they don't like.Anabobazina said:
If she did it now would you support her being fined £1,000 and reprimanded?malcolmg said:
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry aboutAnabobazina said:
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.Taz said:
From the BBC article about itTOPPING said:
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.Cookie said:
Charged with what?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""
0 -
That's a matter for the lender(s). I'm saying that if I were part of a young couple in those circumstances, I'd almost certainly go for it. Who can blame them? It's a better deal for them than renting.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.0 -
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzCookie said:
But you didn't 'call' Nigel on it.TOPPING said:
Look, for you and all the others commenting on it.kamski said:
I find his rhetoric pretty absurd. What has that got to do with it having "proved effective in the past"?TOPPING said:
My point, O Super Thicko, is that his rhetoric has proved effective in the past and he sees no reason to alter his style this time round.kamski said:
What's your point?TOPPING said:
Have you actually listened to anything that Trump has said over the past 10 (30) years?Cookie said:
I think that's pretty batshit. Certainly comfortably outside the normal bounds of political rhetoric.TOPPING said:
So you are a newcomer to political rhetoric. I wouldn't necessarily be shouting it from the rooftops.Nigelb said:
Nuanced. Good one.Sandpit said:
Trump’s point is that cities like San Francisco have simply stopped recording crime below a certain level.DavidL said:The FBI confirms, again, that Trump is a liar: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
Serious crime in the US is falling and has been for a while, since an upward blip during Covid. The murder rate is down 9% and rapes are significantly down too. There is absolutely no trace of crime spiralling out of control, driven by psychotic immigrants.
Of course this won’t stop Trump from continuing to claim otherwise or his supporters believing it. It is not only Iran where the leaders have irrational beliefs.
It’s way more nuanced than “Trump is lying”.
Just admit it, he's batshit.
Trump addresses women: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector ... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger ... you will no longer be thinking about abortion."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1838385282346844352
That you and the other politically blind on here dismiss him and his utterings as absurd is testament to the fact that it is you who are "above the fray" and/or just not been paying attention to politics in the US these past few years.
And where is your evidence that the particular quote that was highlighted is net vote winner? You can certainly make a strong case that a Republican candidate with less batshit rhetoric would be much more likely to win.
These are pretty simple points that even a 6-year-old can understand, so I can assume that you are a troll - which is obvious given that you can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults.
Trump said something ineffably Trumpish and designed to appeal to a certain US voter demographic because, you know, he's in the middle of an election campaign. And all you whingeing Guardian-adjacent liberal types on here clutch your pearls and say "how ghastly". Not quite understanding that it is electioneering in an election campaign and will either succeed or not.
Then, when called on it, you try to meta-argue the fuck out of it and shoot the messenger.
I am simply trying to point out your failings and inadequacies so for god's sake don't take it out on me.
Nigel report something that Trump said, suggesting it was Batshit.
You replied saying 'are you new to political rhetoric?'
Now the inference I took from that was that you were suggesting this is just the sort of things politicians say. I suggested it was outside the bounds of that. To which you hinted at other examples of mad things that Trump has said. Which only means it's not outside the bounds of normality *for Trump*, not that it's not outside the bounds of normal political rhetoric.
Perhaps what you meant was 'are you new to Donald Trump's political rhetoric'?
If your point is that Trump says a lot of things and that some American voters are quite receptive to it, then yes I agree with you. But the implication of what you said was that Trumpian political rhetoric is just normal political rhetoric.
But as I say, perhaps you just missed the words "Donald Trump's" out of "are you new to political rhetoric?"0 -
Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
Tweeted this yesterday and then a load of people pointed out they do have a problem with the gifts themselves, because MPs legislated/regulated to ban huge swathes of workers like them from accepting such gifts, due to the risk of corruption. Which is a fair point.
Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
·
2h
‘It is deeply wrong for a banker/civil servant to accept dinner from a client but my Taylor Swift tickets are just fine’ does have a certain inconsistency.
https://x.com/rcolvile/status/18384685802343837104 -
So an England cricketer should be free to attend parties in blackface?malcolmg said:
Nope, Bollox political correctness by some arseholes. These c!owns need to get a life rather than pick little snippets of history they don't like.Anabobazina said:
If she did it now would you support her being fined £1,000 and reprimanded?malcolmg said:
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry aboutAnabobazina said:
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.Taz said:
From the BBC article about itTOPPING said:
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.Cookie said:
Charged with what?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""0 -
That's your argument, fair enough.Luckyguy1983 said:
It is completely and wilfully missing the point to suggest that this is an argument about procedure, and that whether Keir followed 'procedure' or slipped up on it is the substantive issue. It isn't, and it is disingenuous in the extreme of Sir Sponger to suggest that he went after Boris over procedure - he went after him because it looked like Boris was for sale, just like it now appears that SKS is for sale. This story is also about one individual, and the power they clearly weild at the heart of Government, which they have bought. Whether or not it was declared is immaterial - every system can be stretched and abused, and the reason why things need to be declared is so that the public can see when that point has been reached.Anabobazina said:
Again – AGAIN! – you (deliberately?) misrepresent me. It's a good idea to check someone's posts before you accuse them of hypocrisy or deliberate omission. I have literally said – time and again on here – that Sir Keir made an error by declaring Lady Vic's clothing allowance late. I wrote that many times without prompting from you or anyone else.JosiasJessop said:
You keep on ignoring that repeatedly SKS declares gifts late, and it looks as though Rayner has (at best) incorrectly declared them.Anabobazina said:I see Kemi is now being thrown under the bus for defending Labour politicians accepting gifts. I mean, she is just being fair and honest because politicians of ALL parties accept gifts and have done for years. The point is that they declare them. I and others have been saying this repeatedly on here (and used Kemi as an example days ago) but only now do the Herd click.
Fair play to Kemi for saying it, but she is no different to most other MPs in accept gifts (which are a trivially google-able matter of public record).
Sort your own side out.
He did declare that when he realised his mistake and – crucially – before there was any media interest, but yes it was late nevertheless.
But I have written that numerous times. Can't you read?
My point was with the increasingly underhand Josias deliberately misrepresenting me: some might call it lying – but I'm more charitable that that.0 -
I'd find it quite insulting if someone offered to buy me a suit.rottenborough said:
Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
Tweeted this yesterday and then a load of people pointed out they do have a problem with the gifts themselves, because MPs legislated/regulated to ban huge swathes of workers like them from accepting such gifts, due to the risk of corruption. Which is a fair point.
Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
·
2h
‘It is deeply wrong for a banker/civil servant to accept dinner from a client but my Taylor Swift tickets are just fine’ does have a certain inconsistency.
https://x.com/rcolvile/status/18384685802343837102 -
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.1 -
It would be bad taste for sure but what are the woke police after next, ban knights because of the crusades, or ban English uniforms because of all the murders in the highland clearances and on and on. Selective banning by a few sanctimonious arse holes is not a good signAnabobazina said:
So an England cricketer should be free to attend parties in blackface?malcolmg said:
Nope, Bollox political correctness by some arseholes. These c!owns need to get a life rather than pick little snippets of history they don't like.Anabobazina said:
If she did it now would you support her being fined £1,000 and reprimanded?malcolmg said:
Pathetic, the jackets should have real stuff to worry aboutAnabobazina said:
Seems a fair judgement and punishment. Blacking up at a party was moronic in 2012, too. She was playing for England by then - representing your country and blacking up is not a good look. She has apologised and accepted the sanction. Move on.Taz said:
From the BBC article about itTOPPING said:
Disrepute, presumably. Do we know who she came as or was it a "generic" get up.Cookie said:
Charged with what?Taz said:England women’s captain Heather Knight has been charged over a social media post from more than a decade ago when she was photographed in blackface.
Knight was 21 at the time and at a cricket club in Kent when she attended the fancy dress end of season party.
She has been reprimanded and issued a £1,000 fine, which is suspended for two years, after admitting to the charge, England’s Cricket Regulator said on Monday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/england-captain-heather-knight-charged-for-historic-blackface-social-media-post/ar-AA1r3FuT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=018c2d387b14435b987bc9b8ec94320d&ei=11
"The photograph of Knight was reported to the Cricket Regulator in July of this year and she was charged in August. At the time she was captain of London Spirit in The Hundred, which the side went on to win.
Interim director of the Cricket Regulator Dave Lewis said: "Cricket is working to become a more inclusive sport and the Cricket Regulator is committed to acting positively and impartially whenever racist behaviour is reported to us.
"In this case, Ms Knight's behaviour was discriminatory and offensive, however the Cricket Discipline Commission accepted there was no racist intent in her conduct. I welcome her acknowledgment of the potential impact of her behaviour, and her unreserved apology.""1 -
It's good for the lender in the short term (More money lent = more customers, more income) and good for the couple (Can get on the ladder) - but it creates major issues and systemic risk long term as @Malmesbury and @LostPassword have pointed out.Anabobazina said:
That's a matter for the lender(s). I'm saying that if I were part of a young couple in those circumstances, I'd almost certainly go for it. Who can blame them? It's a better deal for them than renting.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
The next lever I guess that banks might pull is never actually worrying about the capital of a mortgage to be paid off for owner occupiers once a certain LTV is reached (This might already be the case, it's something I personally won't be looking at when I remortgage shortly though !)1 -
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their livesSandpit said:
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.1 -
Not true at all. Anti-democratic attempts to frustrate the expressed will of the people did take place in the Commons, but also in the Lords, the courts, in Europe and on the streets.TOPPING said:
Fantasy.Fishing said:It is indeed easy to take democracy for granted, and the danger can be closer to home than we might like to think.
It isn't so long, for instance, that a large chunk of the political nation refused to accept the outcome of the largest democratic vote in this country's history and did everything they could to frustrate it - incidentally often the same people who get sanctimonious about the dismal Trump's awful refusal to accept the results of the last American election, and including our current Prime Minister.
Either one is a democrat or one isn't. The test is whether one accepts the results of votes one doesn't like.
All the dissembling was done in the House of Commons. There should be a clue in there for even the most challenged political analysts.
From 2016-2019 our claim to be a democracy was in serious danger and only the smashing Conservative victory at the end of 2019 rescued it (and also incidentally saw off the Loony Left for a while at least).2 -
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?malcolmg said:
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their livesSandpit said:
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.1 -
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgagenoneoftheabove said:
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?malcolmg said:
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their livesSandpit said:
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.1 -
What exactly is being said with blackface. I suppose it is that black people are, in and of themselves, comic objects or objects of derision. Plus the juxtaposition of someone white being something they're not.
But why is that inherently a) funny; or b) insulting.
If she had turned up as Viv Richards would that have been better or worse? What about Thor or the Black Panther.
I think the convention is that it is insulting and I am happy to go along with that but it probably needs some unpicking.1 -
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.malcolmg said:
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgagenoneoftheabove said:
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?malcolmg said:
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their livesSandpit said:
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.1 -
Totally. Agree but greed and thick politicians make it unlikely unfortunatelynoneoftheabove said:
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.malcolmg said:
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgagenoneoftheabove said:
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?malcolmg said:
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their livesSandpit said:
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.0 -
Topping, for me issue is how selective they are on what is and is not insulting, decided by some total arseholeTOPPING said:What exactly is being said with blackface. I suppose it is that black people are, in and of themselves, comic objects or objects of derision. Plus the juxtaposition of someone white being something they're not.
But why is that inherently a) funny; or b) insulting.
If she had turned up as Viv Richards would that have been better or worse? What about Thor or the Black Panther.
I think the convention is that it is insulting and I am happy to go along with that but it probably needs some unpicking.0 -
Alternatively build a few million more houses, so that they depreciate over time and become more affordable.malcolmg said:
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their livesSandpit said:
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.
Which is absolutely the last thing anyone jumping onto a 6x mortgage today wants to happen in the future.0 -
What level of house building would be required to drop prices by a third?noneoftheabove said:
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.malcolmg said:
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgagenoneoftheabove said:
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?malcolmg said:
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their livesSandpit said:
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.0 -
Quite. A party entitled "Come as your favourite cricketer" would seem that dressing as Sir Viv, putting on make up to try to look like him ought to be reasonable. As would be a black cricketer adopting white make up and a huge beard to be WG Grace.TOPPING said:What exactly is being said with blackface. I suppose it is that black people are, in and of themselves, comic objects or objects of derision. Plus the juxtaposition of someone white being something they're not.
But why is that inherently a) funny; or b) insulting.
If she had turned up as Viv Richards would that have been better or worse? What about Thor or the Black Panther.
I think the convention is that it is insulting and I am happy to go along with that but it probably needs some unpicking.
If the person is pretending to be black as an insult its a different thing.
Culture moves on and what is generally accepted moves on. I am not a fan of judging historical events and people by the mores of today, be that an 18th C trader whose portfolio included the triangular trade or a cricketer at a party 10 years ago.2 -
I'm a real person too, also looking to buy a house in the near future. There's no need to be unpleasant about this to me.Anabobazina said:
So says 'Lost Password', the geezer on the internet. And, he's probably got a point. But a young couple who want their own home aren't going to worry too much about 'the economy' are they? They just want their own home that they can paint and furnish and start a life together, without paying some chiselling landlord even more in rent each month to do fuck-all (but moan when they put some shelves up).LostPassword said:
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
If house prices were one-third lower the putative couple could buy their house with mortgage repayments less than one-third of their income and they'd have more money leftover for other parts of the economy.
Same with lower rents.
I'm not saying the couple are wrong to take Nationwide up on their offer, but that, as a society, Britain has gone seriously wrong that it is necessary for them to do so.
So you understand my point?2 -
Depends. If the government decides to prop up prices through banks, housing benefit and help to buy style measure its probably impossible to build enough. Remove/reduce that price support, return it to more of a free market and it would be achievable.RobD said:
What level of house building would be required to drop prices by a third?noneoftheabove said:
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.malcolmg said:
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgagenoneoftheabove said:
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?malcolmg said:
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their livesSandpit said:
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.1 -
A country also needs to have headroom to borrow in crisis situations - war, pandemic, etc - so when there isn't a crisis situation then debt-to-GDP needs to fall so that it can borrow an extra 20-30% of GDP when bird flu starts human-to-human transmission, or whatever.TimS said:
The key thing is the size of the deficit - that is, the extra debt taken on in the year - vs the rate of GDP growth. If one equals the other then our debt to GDP ratio stays the same.LostPassword said:
The normal rule of thumb is that a household should try not to spend more than one-third of their income on rent/mortgage payments.Barnesian said:
Apply it to UK government tax income of £0.83tr gives a borrowing figure of £5tr.Pulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
We're only half way there at £2.7tr. Plenty of headroom.
Do you really think it would be sensible for one-third of government tax revenue to be spent on servicing the national debt? What spending would you cut to afford the extra £bns of debt interest payments?
Remember this is nominal GDP growth. Ie before stripping out inflation. Current nominal growth is about 4.5%.
You borrow ideally to fund growth. It then all depends on whether an extra 1% of borrowing each year will drive more or less than an extra 1% of nominal GDP growth.
Ideally debt as a percentage of GDP will be below 80% (or lower) and heading down before the next big crisis hits.2 -
Well we can't afford to pay out the amount we are currently spending on housing benefit so something needs to give..,noneoftheabove said:
Depends. If the government decides to prop up prices through banks, housing benefit and help to buy style measure its probably impossible to build enough. Remove/reduce that price support, return it to more of a free market and it would be achievable.RobD said:
What level of house building would be required to drop prices by a third?noneoftheabove said:
But if we build enough of them the mortgage would be at 4x rather than 6x and they would be better off......rocket science this ain't.malcolmg said:
A novel idea but they would still need a mortgagenoneoftheabove said:
I wonder if we put some bricks together whether it might be possible to build some more houses?malcolmg said:
Just leave them languishing with ever increasing rents for the rest of their livesSandpit said:
Yes, something that’s underreported is the impact on the availability of finance on house prices, at least outside prime central London, as most people are buying with a mortgage.Malmesbury said:
It’s not about moralising. It’s about risk management.Anabobazina said:
I got a 100% mortgage in the mid-00s. It worked me and my wife, so I'm loathe to moralise about others. The alternative is paying someone else's home loan at probably greater expense.Malmesbury said:
That is the exact mentality that led to 2008Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
If they have steady jobs - what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to give it up to care for a family member? Or gets sick?
They can afford the monthly payments - interest rates are still very low, historically. What happens if they go up? In the next 20 years.
To a large extent, house prices are a function of what you can borrow. Increasing borrowing, like this, just allows house prices to rise further.
And creates an increased vulnerability for the people borrowing and the financial system.
6x dual salary is very vulnerable to redundancy or rate rises, even with a large deposit, as just the monthly payment is close to 50% of joint income.0 -
My first mortgage cost me about that as a percentage of my salary. It soon reduced as my pay went up.LostPassword said:
I'm a real person too, also looking to buy a house in the near future. There's no need to be unpleasant about this to me.Anabobazina said:
So says 'Lost Password', the geezer on the internet. And, he's probably got a point. But a young couple who want their own home aren't going to worry too much about 'the economy' are they? They just want their own home that they can paint and furnish and start a life together, without paying some chiselling landlord even more in rent each month to do fuck-all (but moan when they put some shelves up).LostPassword said:
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
If house prices were one-third lower the putative couple could buy their house with mortgage repayments less than one-third of their income and they'd have more money leftover for other parts of the economy.
Same with lower rents.
I'm not saying the couple are wrong to take Nationwide up on their offer, but that, as a society, Britain has gone seriously wrong that it is necessary for them to do so.
So you understand my point?1 -
Negative equity occured betweeen 1991 - 1996 and 2007 - 2009 and it destroyed peoples livesHYUFD said:
It is more a risk for the bank or building society lending a la 2008, at worst even if theyBig_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningHYUFD said:
For individuals maybe, for couples notPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
The problem is that it feeds into maintaining high prices and puts the borrowers at risk of negative equity if the market falls, which by the way happened in the 2008 crisis
Frankly it is irresponsible lending
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/subprime-mortgage-crisis/#:~:text=The subprime mortgage crisis was,to the global financial system.
could no longer afford repayments the
borrowing couple would have
built up some capital in it
when sold in most cases rather than just renting. Negative equity only would occur if a massive slump in house prices
I witnessed a young couple thrown out of their home onto their front garden as the bailiffs repossed it for the building society and it remains strong in my memory 30 years later
We live in a volatile world where wars and the climate crisis are occurring and nobody can predict what may happen to interest rates and recessions going forward
Encouraging reckless lending is irresponsible and I have seen the trauma caused4 -
Well yes, but this point isn't often made: we're in a world now where salaries don't go up like they once did. High interest rates were bad for getting on the property ladder, but the high inflation which went with them was good once you were there.JohnLilburne said:
My first mortgage cost me about that as a percentage of my salary. It soon reduced as my pay went up.LostPassword said:
I'm a real person too, also looking to buy a house in the near future. There's no need to be unpleasant about this to me.Anabobazina said:
So says 'Lost Password', the geezer on the internet. And, he's probably got a point. But a young couple who want their own home aren't going to worry too much about 'the economy' are they? They just want their own home that they can paint and furnish and start a life together, without paying some chiselling landlord even more in rent each month to do fuck-all (but moan when they put some shelves up).LostPassword said:
Take home pay for a couple both earning £25k is £3,582 per month. The lowest monthly repayment on £300k mortgage from Nationwide is £1,607 pcm, or 45% of post-tax income.Anabobazina said:
If they have steady jobs and can afford the monthly payments what’s the problem? Better than paying the same/more in rent and paying off someone else’s home loanPulpstar said:Nationwide - The new deals will enable a couple earning £50,000 between them to borrow £300,000.
6 * joint salary is absolute madness lol.
This is one reason the economy is doing so badly in Britain. Too much of people's income is being spent on housing.
If house prices were one-third lower the putative couple could buy their house with mortgage repayments less than one-third of their income and they'd have more money leftover for other parts of the economy.
Same with lower rents.
I'm not saying the couple are wrong to take Nationwide up on their offer, but that, as a society, Britain has gone seriously wrong that it is necessary for them to do so.
So you understand my point?4 -
Not like you to miss the obvious parallel with drag queens which are on the other side of the partisan divide when it comes to acceptability.TOPPING said:What exactly is being said with blackface. I suppose it is that black people are, in and of themselves, comic objects or objects of derision. Plus the juxtaposition of someone white being something they're not.
But why is that inherently a) funny; or b) insulting.
If she had turned up as Viv Richards would that have been better or worse? What about Thor or the Black Panther.
I think the convention is that it is insulting and I am happy to go along with that but it probably needs some unpicking.2 -
Interesting. This shows the strength of the notion of "fairness" which did for Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng.rottenborough said:
Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
Tweeted this yesterday and then a load of people pointed out they do have a problem with the gifts themselves, because MPs legislated/regulated to ban huge swathes of workers like them from accepting such gifts, due to the risk of corruption. Which is a fair point.
Robert Colvile
@rcolvile
·
2h
‘It is deeply wrong for a banker/civil servant to accept dinner from a client but my Taylor Swift tickets are just fine’ does have a certain inconsistency.
https://x.com/rcolvile/status/1838468580234383710
We know "gifts" to senior politicians have bene going on for years but now it's reached the limit of public acceptance just as proposals for cutting taxes for the very wealthy did a couple of years ago.
People want a level playing field and are tired of the "one rule for us, one rule for you" style of public life. Making politicans have the same rules as senior civil servants seems a way forward. If you want to go to a Taylor Swift concert, fine, pay for a ticket like everyone else. If you get an invite to go to Doncaster Races, fine, but declare it and ensure there's a transparent and accountable line.
Governing fairly is goign to be the challenge going forward - NOT having policies overtly favouring the people who voted for you or who support you and indeed being prepared to have policies which antagonise those groups in order to achieve something positive for the whole country.1
