Russia has kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. Putin was indicted for this crime. Yale has a unit searching for them. Musk eliminated the funding.
I just packed for a long awaited trip to Uruguay. Nailed everything down. Shut the flat. Got the Uber to Paddington. Got Heathrow express to LHR. Trundled to terminal 3. Went suavely to the check in desk, congratulating myself on being prompt and efficient - almost 3 hours before departure, time for a drink. At the check in desk they got confused by my ticket and then they pointed out that, in fact, I was two days early and I fly out to Uruguay on Monday
Have you been to Uruguay before?
No. I'm looking forward to it. Tho TBH I'd prefer to be going to Paraguay which seems a genuinely crazy country
Nonetheless, Uruguay!
My brother, who has a deeply juvenile sense of humour, has told me that when I am there I should pronounce it "You're a gay" but do it with a total straight face indicating that I really believe this is how to pronounce it
Then I can go into bars and say "I love it here, why not, it's great, I mean" - pointing at nearest local rugby player - "Who wouldn't love it. You're a gay!"
I'd get killed but it would be funny (or so he thinks)
Who wouldn't love rugby?
Well, any Welshman for starters
The main advantage of my totally fucking up the actual departure date of my flight to Uruguay was that I got to see the whole of the Wales England game
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This is possibly rhe worst Welsh team I have ever seen, but still, England crushed them brutally and skilfully
Genuine question. Are they not? American pollsters are so confusing
See the link I added to my post.
They so pro Trump in their polling.
538 dropped from their panel.
Somebody who was surveyed once posted a screen shot of the questions, it wasn't far off asking
'Who do you want running the economy, Donald Trump who has delivered record breaking growth/jobs or Joe Biden who when he was Obama's VP destroyed the economy.'
OTH it has to be acknowledged that the polls we wanted to believe were wrong and the ones we considered biased in Trump's favour (including the average RCP which I was very rude about) were much closer to the result.
Genuine question. Are they not? American pollsters are so confusing
See the link I added to my post.
They so pro Trump in their polling.
538 dropped from their panel.
Somebody who was surveyed once posted a screen shot of the questions, it wasn't far off asking
'Who do you want running the economy, Donald Trump who has delivered record breaking growth/jobs or Joe Biden who when he was Obama's VP destroyed the economy.'
Fair enough
Do the Americans not have a version of the BPC that vets all these pollsters so you can spot the duds?
They do not an APC.
Pollsters do not have to publish data tables in America.
All the pollsters who do publish data tables are finding Trump's ratings falling.
NEW: Seven in ten Americans now feel the economy is in a bad state or is worsening
J.L. Partners for @DailyMail, 1,019 registered voters, March 5-7, 2025
I just packed for a long awaited trip to Uruguay. Nailed everything down. Shut the flat. Got the Uber to Paddington. Got Heathrow express to LHR. Trundled to terminal 3. Went suavely to the check in desk, congratulating myself on being prompt and efficient - almost 3 hours before departure, time for a drink. At the check in desk they got confused by my ticket and then they pointed out that, in fact, I was two days early and I fly out to Uruguay on Monday
Have you been to Uruguay before?
No. I'm looking forward to it. Tho TBH I'd prefer to be going to Paraguay which seems a genuinely crazy country
Nonetheless, Uruguay!
My brother, who has a deeply juvenile sense of humour, has told me that when I am there I should pronounce it "You're a gay" but do it with a total straight face indicating that I really believe this is how to pronounce it
Then I can go into bars and say "I love it here, why not, it's great, I mean" - pointing at nearest local rugby player - "Who wouldn't love it. You're a gay!"
I'd get killed but it would be funny (or so he thinks)
Who wouldn't love rugby?
Well, any Welshman for starters
The main advantage of my totally fucking up the actual departure date of my flight to Uruguay was that I got to see the whole of the Wales England game
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This is possibly rhe worst Welsh team I have ever seen, but still, England crushed them brutally and skilfully
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Speaking from experience, many young people have to move around in the first five or ten years of their careers - this is the nature of the job market these days. As such, they ussually end up either in rented flats or HMOs. My daughter is a good example of this having just moved out and across to the other side of the country for work. She actually could afford to buy (for reasons I explained a few days ago on here) but she and her partner don't want to yet until they know where they are going to finally settle.
Long term buying is far better (IMO). But the idea we don't need a private rental sector at all for all sorts of reasons is just wrong.
That's exactly the point I made above. But the idea that everyone renting now is doing so because they want to is plainly wrong - I rented for about four years longer than I wanted to, and it still required a gift worth £10,000s to get me on the ladder. There are other people in the same situation for decades because they don't have the intergenerational wealth to escape.
Let's say half of private landlords were forced to sell up in the next 5 years. What would that do to house prices in our cities? Would that make it easier for first time buyers? Would there be thousands of empty flats?
I actualy agree with your end aim. The problem is that if you forced 50% of landlords to sell up, whilst it might reduce the cost of housing a small amount, it would not reduce the cost of buying a house sufficiently for all those people who are currently renting a house to be able to afford one. So the cost of renting goes up and they are even worse off.
Also worth remembering that, for all I think the dream of owning a house is a noble one and one we should try to make reality for all who want it, mass house wonership is only a relatively recent, post war, phenomena.
Why would the cost of renting go up? We've just removed 50% of demand too, with half of renting households moving into their own properties. At the very least, I think we should try to stop the trend of increasing renting rates - we're moving rather rapidly towards a new type of feudalism.
But yes - I actually agree with Nick's point, which is that the only reason this is become such a big issue is because the model in the UK makes owning property almost essential. A large majority in Germany rent, but housing costs are much lower. That wouldn't be a necessarily bad outcome.
Er no you havene't. That is based on the assumption that the cost of housing drops sufficiently for those who are renting to be able to buy the house they are living in or a similar property. That is almost certainly not going to happen. So those families living in rented property suddenly find that the property is no longer available and they can't afford to buy anywhere else.
I don't see why that couldn't happen. You're suggesting that swathes of housing in Edinburgh would lie empty if it wasn't for the private rental market.
No, I am suggesting that the people who would buy it wuld not be the sorts of people who were having to rent it in the first place. How do they raise a deposit? You do realise that according to the FT and the Halifax it is now cheaper to rent than buy in the short to medium term?
This is getting a bit silly. All I'm suggesting is that the idea that private landlords provide some sort of service is nonsense. Whatever the form of tenure, housing demand is so high in our cities that homes will be occupied. It's just that the tax system + gross inequality will lead to the landlord class enjoying all the capital gains from housing, while those at the bottom suffer more and more.
That's a bizarre comment too imo.
Of course landlords provide a service - a housing service. It's governed by about 100 acts of Parliament including remaining clauses of the Magna Carta, and a ginormous volume of contract law and regulation. That's England, but Scotland is similar.
Whilst I'm at it, the idea that 'rich landlords are buying up an ever increasing proportion of housing stock' is untrue as well. In Scotland iirc the number (never mind the proportion) of rented stock peaked in about 2015. After that the proportion fell sharply.
In England the % of owner occupiers has increased in something like 6 out of the last 8 years, and has increased from 62.6% in 2017 to 64.8% in 2024. The history is that it was ~70% around 2000 through till 2007, fell for the next 10 years, and then the trend reversed.
This is one reason why I generally stay off these debates on PB now; facts and data don't apply - and it is usually in the main a swapping of faith-positions.
The number of households privately renting increased by 28% between 2011 and 2021 in England and Wales - a 3.6ppt rise. What your data describes is the squeezing of social housing as a proportion of housing tenure, not private rentals.
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
Exactly. And Russian is not a democracy.
It is, it has multi party parliamentary and presidential elections even if not a perfect one.
For most of the 20th century Russia and indeed Ukraine too were one party communist dictatorships under the USSR and before that under the absolute monarchy of the Tsars
The Economist Democracy Index rates Russia as an Authoritarian Regime. Out of a choice of Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid Regime and Authoritarian Regime.
Democracy Matrix has Russia as 'Moderate Autocracy'. Out of Working Democracy Deficient Democracy Hybrid Regime Moderate Autocracy Hard Autocracy
If Russia was a dictatorship Putin would have got 100% of the vote in the last Russian presidential election, he got 88% and the Communists and New People 4% for their candidates and Liberal Democrats 3%
(The answer is probably "of course not". There's plenty of space where elections can happen without them being meaningful. Most dictators prefer to operate in that space, it's less embarrassing for them.)
No, as no party other than the Communist Party was allowed to contest its elections
Belarus? It is not a democracy if you allow opponents but fix the result
It is a flawed democracy or at most a diluted dictatorship, a true pure dictatorship would ban any alternative party from contesting its elections if it has any elections at all for government executive and legislative posts as well as jail or execute most of its opponents of course
You really are a cretin. Lukashenka presides over a murderous violence which is truly horrible to behold, and yes I have been there and yes I have friends who have been forced to flee. There is literally nothing to mitigate the vile regime.
Dictatorship has many forms. It is ridiculous of @HYUFD to say it is not a "pure" system of dictatorship.
Even the Nazi allowed "guests" on their lists.
Since no system of government has been tried in its “pure” form, I suggest we try them all again.
First up is Absolute Monarchy. And I am the monarch.
Happy to be a lackey, your majesty. Im very placid, no rebellion here.
I just packed for a long awaited trip to Uruguay. Nailed everything down. Shut the flat. Got the Uber to Paddington. Got Heathrow express to LHR. Trundled to terminal 3. Went suavely to the check in desk, congratulating myself on being prompt and efficient - almost 3 hours before departure, time for a drink. At the check in desk they got confused by my ticket and then they pointed out that, in fact, I was two days early and I fly out to Uruguay on Monday
Have you been to Uruguay before?
No. I'm looking forward to it. Tho TBH I'd prefer to be going to Paraguay which seems a genuinely crazy country
Nonetheless, Uruguay!
My brother, who has a deeply juvenile sense of humour, has told me that when I am there I should pronounce it "You're a gay" but do it with a total straight face indicating that I really believe this is how to pronounce it
Then I can go into bars and say "I love it here, why not, it's great, I mean" - pointing at nearest local rugby player - "Who wouldn't love it. You're a gay!"
I'd get killed but it would be funny (or so he thinks)
Who wouldn't love rugby?
Well, any Welshman for starters
The main advantage of my totally fucking up the actual departure date of my flight to Uruguay was that I got to see the whole of the Wales England game
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This is possibly rhe worst Welsh team I have ever seen, but still, England crushed them brutally and skilfully
Soz boz apolibobs
You're generous.
You think this shambles is a rugby team?
I'm not sure I've ever seen a side so totally humiliated and eviscerated in the Six Nations
It was even worse than Italy versus France last week. There was something more crushing about the way England just walked tries over the line. Perhaps it's because you normally and justifiably expect Wales to up their game against England - especially in Cardiff
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Speaking from experience, many young people have to move around in the first five or ten years of their careers - this is the nature of the job market these days. As such, they ussually end up either in rented flats or HMOs. My daughter is a good example of this having just moved out and across to the other side of the country for work. She actually could afford to buy (for reasons I explained a few days ago on here) but she and her partner don't want to yet until they know where they are going to finally settle.
Long term buying is far better (IMO). But the idea we don't need a private rental sector at all for all sorts of reasons is just wrong.
That's exactly the point I made above. But the idea that everyone renting now is doing so because they want to is plainly wrong - I rented for about four years longer than I wanted to, and it still required a gift worth £10,000s to get me on the ladder. There are other people in the same situation for decades because they don't have the intergenerational wealth to escape.
Let's say half of private landlords were forced to sell up in the next 5 years. What would that do to house prices in our cities? Would that make it easier for first time buyers? Would there be thousands of empty flats?
I actualy agree with your end aim. The problem is that if you forced 50% of landlords to sell up, whilst it might reduce the cost of housing a small amount, it would not reduce the cost of buying a house sufficiently for all those people who are currently renting a house to be able to afford one. So the cost of renting goes up and they are even worse off.
Also worth remembering that, for all I think the dream of owning a house is a noble one and one we should try to make reality for all who want it, mass house wonership is only a relatively recent, post war, phenomena.
Why would the cost of renting go up? We've just removed 50% of demand too, with half of renting households moving into their own properties. At the very least, I think we should try to stop the trend of increasing renting rates - we're moving rather rapidly towards a new type of feudalism.
But yes - I actually agree with Nick's point, which is that the only reason this is become such a big issue is because the model in the UK makes owning property almost essential. A large majority in Germany rent, but housing costs are much lower. That wouldn't be a necessarily bad outcome.
Er no you havene't. That is based on the assumption that the cost of housing drops sufficiently for those who are renting to be able to buy the house they are living in or a similar property. That is almost certainly not going to happen. So those families living in rented property suddenly find that the property is no longer available and they can't afford to buy anywhere else.
I don't see why that couldn't happen. You're suggesting that swathes of housing in Edinburgh would lie empty if it wasn't for the private rental market.
No, I am suggesting that the people who would buy it wuld not be the sorts of people who were having to rent it in the first place. How do they raise a deposit? You do realise that according to the FT and the Halifax it is now cheaper to rent than buy in the short to medium term?
This is getting a bit silly. All I'm suggesting is that the idea that private landlords provide some sort of service is nonsense. Whatever the form of tenure, housing demand is so high in our cities that homes will be occupied. It's just that the tax system + gross inequality will lead to the landlord class enjoying all the capital gains from housing, while those at the bottom suffer more and more.
But the point is that they do provide a very necessary service. There might be a lot wrong with theway it is done - much of which is being addressed by successive governments - but the fact is we need private landlords. There are large numbers of people who cannot afford to buy houses. Getting rid of private landlords won't change that even if a few who are now renting are able to buy. All you will do is put further restrictions on the rental market by reducing availability and drive up rents.
At what point do they stop providing a necessary service? 40% renting tenure? 80%? The full feudal?
The way to reduce costs is to increase supply, not to try and piss around with restrictions on who owns what.
Build more houses and the cost of owning a home, and the cost of renting one, can come down. Without building, its just tinkering at the edges.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Speaking from experience, many young people have to move around in the first five or ten years of their careers - this is the nature of the job market these days. As such, they ussually end up either in rented flats or HMOs. My daughter is a good example of this having just moved out and across to the other side of the country for work. She actually could afford to buy (for reasons I explained a few days ago on here) but she and her partner don't want to yet until they know where they are going to finally settle.
Long term buying is far better (IMO). But the idea we don't need a private rental sector at all for all sorts of reasons is just wrong.
That's exactly the point I made above. But the idea that everyone renting now is doing so because they want to is plainly wrong - I rented for about four years longer than I wanted to, and it still required a gift worth £10,000s to get me on the ladder. There are other people in the same situation for decades because they don't have the intergenerational wealth to escape.
Let's say half of private landlords were forced to sell up in the next 5 years. What would that do to house prices in our cities? Would that make it easier for first time buyers? Would there be thousands of empty flats?
I actualy agree with your end aim. The problem is that if you forced 50% of landlords to sell up, whilst it might reduce the cost of housing a small amount, it would not reduce the cost of buying a house sufficiently for all those people who are currently renting a house to be able to afford one. So the cost of renting goes up and they are even worse off.
Also worth remembering that, for all I think the dream of owning a house is a noble one and one we should try to make reality for all who want it, mass house wonership is only a relatively recent, post war, phenomena.
Why would the cost of renting go up? We've just removed 50% of demand too, with half of renting households moving into their own properties. At the very least, I think we should try to stop the trend of increasing renting rates - we're moving rather rapidly towards a new type of feudalism.
But yes - I actually agree with Nick's point, which is that the only reason this is become such a big issue is because the model in the UK makes owning property almost essential. A large majority in Germany rent, but housing costs are much lower. That wouldn't be a necessarily bad outcome.
Er no you havene't. That is based on the assumption that the cost of housing drops sufficiently for those who are renting to be able to buy the house they are living in or a similar property. That is almost certainly not going to happen. So those families living in rented property suddenly find that the property is no longer available and they can't afford to buy anywhere else.
I don't see why that couldn't happen. You're suggesting that swathes of housing in Edinburgh would lie empty if it wasn't for the private rental market.
No, I am suggesting that the people who would buy it wuld not be the sorts of people who were having to rent it in the first place. How do they raise a deposit? You do realise that according to the FT and the Halifax it is now cheaper to rent than buy in the short to medium term?
This is getting a bit silly. All I'm suggesting is that the idea that private landlords provide some sort of service is nonsense. Whatever the form of tenure, housing demand is so high in our cities that homes will be occupied. It's just that the tax system + gross inequality will lead to the landlord class enjoying all the capital gains from housing, while those at the bottom suffer more and more.
But the point is that they do provide a very necessary service. There might be a lot wrong with theway it is done - much of which is being addressed by successive governments - but the fact is we need private landlords. There are large numbers of people who cannot afford to buy houses. Getting rid of private landlords won't change that even if a few who are now renting are able to buy. All you will do is put further restrictions on the rental market by reducing availability and drive up rents.
At what point do they stop providing a necessary service? 40% renting tenure? 80%? The full feudal?
Ah falling back on the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. I thought you were better than that.
Genuine question. Are they not? American pollsters are so confusing
According to Nate Silver's latest: Trump's approval rating is underwater in the latest CNN/SSRS (-9 net approval), Cygnal (-3), and YouGov/Economist (-1) polls. But in better news for the president, he rose to a +3 net approval in the latest Rasmussen tracking poll.
His average approval is 47.7%. Disapproval 48.7%.
Napolitan's mission is "Through our groundbreaking Counterpolling, we're asking questions* that no one else is asking, and giving leaders and organizations the data they need to break free from the misleading messaging of out of touch Elites."
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Rightmove is choc a bloc with houses every day , looked toda yand 1 bed flats from 14K. You are talking absolute bollox. Not everybody can afford fancy places in Edinburgh.
Was that £14k flat in a location which made getting to Edinburgh to work possible or are you comparing apples with Faberge eggs again
you know well what was meant , there are lot sof cheaper houses as well as expensive ones and Ayr has plenty of employment opportunites , commuting distance to Glasgow etc. His claim there are no low cost house was just bollox, comparing all people to him wanting a fancy pad in Edinburgh is hadly average.
Ayr is an hour away from Glasgow (so you lose 10 hours a week) and the season ticket is £2,400. Assuming average salary, you'd need the housing costs to be about £10,000 less per year in Ayr for that to be worth it. That explains why you can get cheap housing outside of the cities, and why so few people commute to Glasgow from Ayr.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Rightmove is choc a bloc with houses every day , looked toda yand 1 bed flats from 14K. You are talking absolute bollox. Not everybody can afford fancy places in Edinburgh.
Was that £14k flat in a location which made getting to Edinburgh to work possible or are you comparing apples with Faberge eggs again
you know well what was meant , there are lot sof cheaper houses as well as expensive ones and Ayr has plenty of employment opportunites , commuting distance to Glasgow etc. His claim there are no low cost house was just bollox, comparing all people to him wanting a fancy pad in Edinburgh is hadly average.
Ayr is an hour away from Glasgow (so you lose 10 hours a week) and the season ticket is £2,400. Assuming average salary, you'd need the housing costs to be about £10,000 less per year in Ayr for that to be worth it. That explains why you can get cheap housing outside of the cities, and why so few people commute to Glasgow from Ayr.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Rightmove is choc a bloc with houses every day , looked toda yand 1 bed flats from 14K. You are talking absolute bollox. Not everybody can afford fancy places in Edinburgh.
Was that £14k flat in a location which made getting to Edinburgh to work possible or are you comparing apples with Faberge eggs again
you know well what was meant , there are lot sof cheaper houses as well as expensive ones and Ayr has plenty of employment opportunites , commuting distance to Glasgow etc. His claim there are no low cost house was just bollox, comparing all people to him wanting a fancy pad in Edinburgh is hadly average.
Ayr is an hour away from Glasgow (so you lose 10 hours a week) and the season ticket is £2,400. Assuming average salary, you'd need the housing costs to be about £10,000 less per year in Ayr for that to be worth it. That explains why you can get cheap housing outside of the cities, and why so few people commute to Glasgow from Ayr.
trains from ayr are packed in morning and evening
Does that make trains hot Ayr?
Careful now. That’s how you get called a Scotch Expert.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Rightmove is choc a bloc with houses every day , looked toda yand 1 bed flats from 14K. You are talking absolute bollox. Not everybody can afford fancy places in Edinburgh.
Was that £14k flat in a location which made getting to Edinburgh to work possible or are you comparing apples with Faberge eggs again
you know well what was meant , there are lot sof cheaper houses as well as expensive ones and Ayr has plenty of employment opportunites , commuting distance to Glasgow etc. His claim there are no low cost house was just bollox, comparing all people to him wanting a fancy pad in Edinburgh is hadly average.
Ayr is an hour away from Glasgow (so you lose 10 hours a week) and the season ticket is £2,400. Assuming average salary, you'd need the housing costs to be about £10,000 less per year in Ayr for that to be worth it. That explains why you can get cheap housing outside of the cities, and why so few people commute to Glasgow from Ayr.
trains from ayr are packed in morning and evening
Does that make trains hot Ayr?
Careful now. That’s how you get called a Scotch Expert.
Genuine question. Are they not? American pollsters are so confusing
According to Nate Silver's latest: Trump's approval rating is underwater in the latest CNN/SSRS (-9 net approval), Cygnal (-3), and YouGov/Economist (-1) polls. But in better news for the president, he rose to a +3 net approval in the latest Rasmussen tracking poll.
His average approval is 47.7%. Disapproval 48.7%.
Napolitan's mission is "Through our groundbreaking Counterpolling, we're asking questions* that no one else is asking, and giving leaders and organizations the data they need to break free from the misleading messaging of out of touch Elites."
* i.e. totally biased
But they are not Rasmussen.
The polling was done by Rasmussen (tho I have no idea if they are reliable, and @TSE siggests they are not)
In other military industrial complex news, I note that Trump's new Secretary of the Navy has designated Virginia hulls 814 and 815 (the first Block IV boats which were going to the the Australian Navy's new build Virginias) as the USS Pontiac and the USS Norfolk (obviously a Partridge fan).
Hard luck, Aussies. Best of luck getting your money back.
It does look like Australia would be best served by abandoning the AUKUS submarines and going back to a French one, on grounds of availability, cost and suitability and possibly also shared national interest in the Pacific region given Trump's antics.
I can't call that. The Virginia Classes are not due for delivery until the early 2030s, which is very post-Trump.
Nor is it clear that the diesel boats they would get from France would do the job now, or if the French would now be ready to supply nuclear boats. IIRC that was one reason they stopped it, others being horrific cost escalation and feeling that they were being bent over and shafted with a very crusty bagette.
Would a new French programme be any better, and when would it deliver?
OTOH I'm not sure what the status of Oz is in the new USA Alone world; they are on the receiving end of the planned pivot, whilst we are on the losing end.
They have options - I'm not a "submarine knowlegeable" person but our build rate is I think one submarine per 3 years (ish), and they take 8-10 years to build, so that may be able to be accelerated over a number of years to create two or three extras in current conditions.
(Nor am I sure how "sovereign" our nuclear-tech is. I think we had to have new laws passed in the USA around sharing of nuclear - not missile - technology that we have under our 1958 agreement with the USA.)
I'm not sure on any of that. They certainly need to have a think and take a view.
The deal AIUI is three to five Virginia class submarines followed by five boats from the SSN-AUKUS joint venture that will act as a UK replacement to Astute.
The Australians are highly unlikely to get any Virginias and SSN-AUKUS must be doubtful given they haven't even finished Astute yet and will follow on with a very delayed Dreadnought programme before possibly initiating an Astute replacement. The Australians run a significant risk of not getting any submarines at all through AUKUS.
The French design is ready to build if the Australians go for the nuclear version rather than a diesel variant.
On the Virginias the Australians have quite a strong hand, as the USA wants use of their new submarine base which is part of the programme.
Currently aiui on the construction side we have Astute 6 in the water to be commissioned later this year, Astute 7 due for commissioning in 2026, and 3 Dreadnaughts under construction at different stages (the first one already in the hall having its hull put together from modules).
The thing with the challenges is the next generation nuclear reactor at RR.
Genuine question. Are they not? American pollsters are so confusing
According to Nate Silver's latest: Trump's approval rating is underwater in the latest CNN/SSRS (-9 net approval), Cygnal (-3), and YouGov/Economist (-1) polls. But in better news for the president, he rose to a +3 net approval in the latest Rasmussen tracking poll.
His average approval is 47.7%. Disapproval 48.7%.
Napolitan's mission is "Through our groundbreaking Counterpolling, we're asking questions* that no one else is asking, and giving leaders and organizations the data they need to break free from the misleading messaging of out of touch Elites."
* i.e. totally biased
But they are not Rasmussen.
The Napolitan News Service survey of 3,000 Registered Voters nationwide was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen March 6-13, 2025. Field work for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc. and has a margin of error of +/- 1.8.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Speaking from experience, many young people have to move around in the first five or ten years of their careers - this is the nature of the job market these days. As such, they ussually end up either in rented flats or HMOs. My daughter is a good example of this having just moved out and across to the other side of the country for work. She actually could afford to buy (for reasons I explained a few days ago on here) but she and her partner don't want to yet until they know where they are going to finally settle.
Long term buying is far better (IMO). But the idea we don't need a private rental sector at all for all sorts of reasons is just wrong.
That's exactly the point I made above. But the idea that everyone renting now is doing so because they want to is plainly wrong - I rented for about four years longer than I wanted to, and it still required a gift worth £10,000s to get me on the ladder. There are other people in the same situation for decades because they don't have the intergenerational wealth to escape.
Let's say half of private landlords were forced to sell up in the next 5 years. What would that do to house prices in our cities? Would that make it easier for first time buyers? Would there be thousands of empty flats?
I actualy agree with your end aim. The problem is that if you forced 50% of landlords to sell up, whilst it might reduce the cost of housing a small amount, it would not reduce the cost of buying a house sufficiently for all those people who are currently renting a house to be able to afford one. So the cost of renting goes up and they are even worse off.
Also worth remembering that, for all I think the dream of owning a house is a noble one and one we should try to make reality for all who want it, mass house wonership is only a relatively recent, post war, phenomena.
Why would the cost of renting go up? We've just removed 50% of demand too, with half of renting households moving into their own properties. At the very least, I think we should try to stop the trend of increasing renting rates - we're moving rather rapidly towards a new type of feudalism.
But yes - I actually agree with Nick's point, which is that the only reason this is become such a big issue is because the model in the UK makes owning property almost essential. A large majority in Germany rent, but housing costs are much lower. That wouldn't be a necessarily bad outcome.
Er no you havene't. That is based on the assumption that the cost of housing drops sufficiently for those who are renting to be able to buy the house they are living in or a similar property. That is almost certainly not going to happen. So those families living in rented property suddenly find that the property is no longer available and they can't afford to buy anywhere else.
I don't see why that couldn't happen. You're suggesting that swathes of housing in Edinburgh would lie empty if it wasn't for the private rental market.
No, I am suggesting that the people who would buy it wuld not be the sorts of people who were having to rent it in the first place. How do they raise a deposit? You do realise that according to the FT and the Halifax it is now cheaper to rent than buy in the short to medium term?
This is getting a bit silly. All I'm suggesting is that the idea that private landlords provide some sort of service is nonsense. Whatever the form of tenure, housing demand is so high in our cities that homes will be occupied. It's just that the tax system + gross inequality will lead to the landlord class enjoying all the capital gains from housing, while those at the bottom suffer more and more.
But the point is that they do provide a very necessary service. There might be a lot wrong with theway it is done - much of which is being addressed by successive governments - but the fact is we need private landlords. There are large numbers of people who cannot afford to buy houses. Getting rid of private landlords won't change that even if a few who are now renting are able to buy. All you will do is put further restrictions on the rental market by reducing availability and drive up rents.
At what point do they stop providing a necessary service? 40% renting tenure? 80%? The full feudal?
Ah falling back on the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. I thought you were better than that.
I'm serious. For what proportion of people do you think renting is the optimal option over owning their own place?
In other military industrial complex news, I note that Trump's new Secretary of the Navy has designated Virginia hulls 814 and 815 (the first Block IV boats which were going to the the Australian Navy's new build Virginias) as the USS Pontiac and the USS Norfolk (obviously a Partridge fan).
Hard luck, Aussies. Best of luck getting your money back.
It does look like Australia would be best served by abandoning the AUKUS submarines and going back to a French one, on grounds of availability, cost and suitability and possibly also shared national interest in the Pacific region given Trump's antics.
I can't call that. The Virginia Classes are not due for delivery until the early 2030s, which is very post-Trump.
Nor is it clear that the diesel boats they would get from France would do the job now, or if the French would now be ready to supply nuclear boats. IIRC that was one reason they stopped it, others being horrific cost escalation and feeling that they were being bent over and shafted with a very crusty bagette.
Would a new French programme be any better, and when would it deliver?
OTOH I'm not sure what the status of Oz is in the new USA Alone world; they are on the receiving end of the planned pivot, whilst we are on the losing end.
They have options - I'm not a "submarine knowlegeable" person but our build rate is I think one submarine per 3 years (ish), and they take 8-10 years to build, so that may be able to be accelerated over a number of years to create two or three extras in current conditions.
(Nor am I sure how "sovereign" our nuclear-tech is. I think we had to have new laws passed in the USA around sharing of nuclear - not missile - technology that we have under our 1958 agreement with the USA.)
I'm not sure on any of that. They certainly need to have a think and take a view.
The deal AIUI is three to five Virginia class submarines followed by five boats from the SSN-AUKUS joint venture that will act as a UK replacement to Astute.
The Australians are highly unlikely to get any Virginias and SSN-AUKUS must be doubtful given they haven't even finished Astute yet and will follow on with a very delayed Dreadnought programme before possibly initiating an Astute replacement. The Australians run a significant risk of not getting any submarines at all through AUKUS.
The French design is ready to build if the Australians go for the nuclear version rather than a diesel variant.
On the Virginias the Australians have quite a strong hand, as the USA wants use of their new submarine base which is part of the programme.
Currently aiui on the construction side we have Astute 6 in the water to be commissioned later this year, Astute 7 due for commissioning in 2026, and 3 Dreadnaughts under construction at different stages (the first one already in the hall having its hull put together from modules).
The thing with the challenges is the next generation nuclear reactor at RR.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Rightmove is choc a bloc with houses every day , looked toda yand 1 bed flats from 14K. You are talking absolute bollox. Not everybody can afford fancy places in Edinburgh.
Was that £14k flat in a location which made getting to Edinburgh to work possible or are you comparing apples with Faberge eggs again
you know well what was meant , there are lot sof cheaper houses as well as expensive ones and Ayr has plenty of employment opportunites , commuting distance to Glasgow etc. His claim there are no low cost house was just bollox, comparing all people to him wanting a fancy pad in Edinburgh is hadly average.
Ayr is an hour away from Glasgow (so you lose 10 hours a week) and the season ticket is £2,400. Assuming average salary, you'd need the housing costs to be about £10,000 less per year in Ayr for that to be worth it. That explains why you can get cheap housing outside of the cities, and why so few people commute to Glasgow from Ayr.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Rightmove is choc a bloc with houses every day , looked toda yand 1 bed flats from 14K. You are talking absolute bollox. Not everybody can afford fancy places in Edinburgh.
Was that £14k flat in a location which made getting to Edinburgh to work possible or are you comparing apples with Faberge eggs again
you know well what was meant , there are lot sof cheaper houses as well as expensive ones and Ayr has plenty of employment opportunites , commuting distance to Glasgow etc. His claim there are no low cost house was just bollox, comparing all people to him wanting a fancy pad in Edinburgh is hadly average.
Ayr is an hour away from Glasgow (so you lose 10 hours a week) and the season ticket is £2,400. Assuming average salary, you'd need the housing costs to be about £10,000 less per year in Ayr for that to be worth it. That explains why you can get cheap housing outside of the cities, and why so few people commute to Glasgow from Ayr.
There should be a rule where, if a try is completely majestic, the ref is allowed to ignore the fucking VAR wankers, on the grounds the try is so good it deserves to be a try, whatever
In other military industrial complex news, I note that Trump's new Secretary of the Navy has designated Virginia hulls 814 and 815 (the first Block IV boats which were going to the the Australian Navy's new build Virginias) as the USS Pontiac and the USS Norfolk (obviously a Partridge fan).
Hard luck, Aussies. Best of luck getting your money back.
It does look like Australia would be best served by abandoning the AUKUS submarines and going back to a French one, on grounds of availability, cost and suitability and possibly also shared national interest in the Pacific region given Trump's antics.
I can't call that. The Virginia Classes are not due for delivery until the early 2030s, which is very post-Trump.
Nor is it clear that the diesel boats they would get from France would do the job now, or if the French would now be ready to supply nuclear boats. IIRC that was one reason they stopped it, others being horrific cost escalation and feeling that they were being bent over and shafted with a very crusty bagette.
Would a new French programme be any better, and when would it deliver?
OTOH I'm not sure what the status of Oz is in the new USA Alone world; they are on the receiving end of the planned pivot, whilst we are on the losing end.
They have options - I'm not a "submarine knowlegeable" person but our build rate is I think one submarine per 3 years (ish), and they take 8-10 years to build, so that may be able to be accelerated over a number of years to create two or three extras in current conditions.
(Nor am I sure how "sovereign" our nuclear-tech is. I think we had to have new laws passed in the USA around sharing of nuclear - not missile - technology that we have under our 1958 agreement with the USA.)
I'm not sure on any of that. They certainly need to have a think and take a view.
The deal AIUI is three to five Virginia class submarines followed by five boats from the SSN-AUKUS joint venture that will act as a UK replacement to Astute.
The Australians are highly unlikely to get any Virginias and SSN-AUKUS must be doubtful given they haven't even finished Astute yet and will follow on with a very delayed Dreadnought programme before possibly initiating an Astute replacement. The Australians run a significant risk of not getting any submarines at all through AUKUS.
The French design is ready to build if the Australians go for the nuclear version rather than a diesel variant.
On the Virginias the Australians have quite a strong hand, as the USA wants use of their new submarine base which is part of the programme.
Currently aiui on the construction side we have Astute 6 in the water to be commissioned later this year, Astute 7 due for commissioning in 2026, and 3 Dreadnaughts under construction at different stages (the first one already in the hall having its hull put together from modules).
The thing with the challenges is the next generation nuclear reactor at RR.
He does appear to be grinding an axe but I would find it difficult to argue (while lacking expertise) against his two substantive points: That Australia is unlikely to get any Virginias as long as USA has a big shortfall. That there must be a lot of doubt Astute will be replaced at all in any planning horizon. In which case what's the point of SSN AUKUS from an Australian perspective against choosing a French sub that is at least realistic?
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Rightmove is choc a bloc with houses every day , looked toda yand 1 bed flats from 14K. You are talking absolute bollox. Not everybody can afford fancy places in Edinburgh.
Was that £14k flat in a location which made getting to Edinburgh to work possible or are you comparing apples with Faberge eggs again
you know well what was meant , there are lot sof cheaper houses as well as expensive ones and Ayr has plenty of employment opportunites , commuting distance to Glasgow etc. His claim there are no low cost house was just bollox, comparing all people to him wanting a fancy pad in Edinburgh is hadly average.
Ayr is an hour away from Glasgow (so you lose 10 hours a week) and the season ticket is £2,400. Assuming average salary, you'd need the housing costs to be about £10,000 less per year in Ayr for that to be worth it. That explains why you can get cheap housing outside of the cities, and why so few people commute to Glasgow from Ayr.
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Speaking from experience, many young people have to move around in the first five or ten years of their careers - this is the nature of the job market these days. As such, they ussually end up either in rented flats or HMOs. My daughter is a good example of this having just moved out and across to the other side of the country for work. She actually could afford to buy (for reasons I explained a few days ago on here) but she and her partner don't want to yet until they know where they are going to finally settle.
Long term buying is far better (IMO). But the idea we don't need a private rental sector at all for all sorts of reasons is just wrong.
That's exactly the point I made above. But the idea that everyone renting now is doing so because they want to is plainly wrong - I rented for about four years longer than I wanted to, and it still required a gift worth £10,000s to get me on the ladder. There are other people in the same situation for decades because they don't have the intergenerational wealth to escape.
Let's say half of private landlords were forced to sell up in the next 5 years. What would that do to house prices in our cities? Would that make it easier for first time buyers? Would there be thousands of empty flats?
I actualy agree with your end aim. The problem is that if you forced 50% of landlords to sell up, whilst it might reduce the cost of housing a small amount, it would not reduce the cost of buying a house sufficiently for all those people who are currently renting a house to be able to afford one. So the cost of renting goes up and they are even worse off.
Also worth remembering that, for all I think the dream of owning a house is a noble one and one we should try to make reality for all who want it, mass house wonership is only a relatively recent, post war, phenomena.
Why would the cost of renting go up? We've just removed 50% of demand too, with half of renting households moving into their own properties. At the very least, I think we should try to stop the trend of increasing renting rates - we're moving rather rapidly towards a new type of feudalism.
But yes - I actually agree with Nick's point, which is that the only reason this is become such a big issue is because the model in the UK makes owning property almost essential. A large majority in Germany rent, but housing costs are much lower. That wouldn't be a necessarily bad outcome.
Er no you havene't. That is based on the assumption that the cost of housing drops sufficiently for those who are renting to be able to buy the house they are living in or a similar property. That is almost certainly not going to happen. So those families living in rented property suddenly find that the property is no longer available and they can't afford to buy anywhere else.
I don't see why that couldn't happen. You're suggesting that swathes of housing in Edinburgh would lie empty if it wasn't for the private rental market.
No, I am suggesting that the people who would buy it wuld not be the sorts of people who were having to rent it in the first place. How do they raise a deposit? You do realise that according to the FT and the Halifax it is now cheaper to rent than buy in the short to medium term?
This is getting a bit silly. All I'm suggesting is that the idea that private landlords provide some sort of service is nonsense. Whatever the form of tenure, housing demand is so high in our cities that homes will be occupied. It's just that the tax system + gross inequality will lead to the landlord class enjoying all the capital gains from housing, while those at the bottom suffer more and more.
But the point is that they do provide a very necessary service. There might be a lot wrong with theway it is done - much of which is being addressed by successive governments - but the fact is we need private landlords. There are large numbers of people who cannot afford to buy houses. Getting rid of private landlords won't change that even if a few who are now renting are able to buy. All you will do is put further restrictions on the rental market by reducing availability and drive up rents.
At what point do they stop providing a necessary service? 40% renting tenure? 80%? The full feudal?
Ah falling back on the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. I thought you were better than that.
I'm serious. For what proportion of people do you think renting is the optimal option over owning their own place?
I don't believe there is an optimal number. It is an entirely objective fact that does not lend itself to such subjective analysis. Some people want to rent. Other people have to rent because of circumstance or because it is the cheapest option. Yet more people are forced to rent because they cannot afford to buy. Getting rid of private landlords limits the choice of those who choose to rent and will do very little or nothing for those who have to rent.
Private landlords are necessary. Some might say a necessary evil even if I would not agree with that. You apparently think they are evil without being necessary. It is a very silly position to take.
In the immortal words of KC and the Subset Band - Please Don't Go! 🙏
"Can't stop now Don't you know? I ain't never gonna let you go Don't go"
- Yazoo.
The Drifters/The Crying Shames/Duffy
If I got on my knees and I pleaded with you Not to go but to stay in my are-arms Would you walk out the door like you did once before? Or would this time be different, would you sta-a-ay? Don't go (Please stay) Don't go
Inviting his dad to be KIng of Scotland. After all, it worked with the Stuart dynasty. He'd want a new Glorious Revolution and MSGA.
Trump is quite similar to Idi Amin, so makes sense
He made a speech at the Department of Justice yesterday in front of an audience of prosecutors where he listed a whole series of people by name who he wants to target - people like Mark Elias (Democracy Docket) and Norm Eisen (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)).
He's moving towards Idi Amin's attack on the Judiciary (see the ex-Archbishop of York, who he locked up when he was around the Supreme Court of Uganda, and had beaten to a pulp.) It's the big one - will the checks and balances of USA democracy hold.
It's better if Trump pops his clogs sooner rather than later - Vance may as bad or worse, but he won't be able to keep all the Republican party or half the US public with him like Trump can
Vance is far more intelligent than Trump though and doesn’t need to face the voters for 3 and a half years
My point is that Trump still needs the votes of, for example, Republican senators - for now. He has them because he is popular enough and Republican elected officials are afraid to oppose him. In a year or two there might be a quasi-dictatorship in the US, and the president may no longer need Congress. I think it's better that Vance replaces Trump before we reach that point, because I think Vance will face more opposition if he tries to claim, as Trump is doing, "l'etat c'est moi."
US has a constitution with a Congress and the Supreme Court, judges for whom Congress also appoints, to remove them and become a dictator Trump would need the military but they take an oath to the constitution and president
Most countries have constitutions. Here's the first line of Russia's:
Russia is a democratic federal law-bound state with a republican form of government.
Well Russia does still have multi party elections, judges and a President
Exactly. And Russian is not a democracy.
It is, it has multi party parliamentary and presidential elections even if not a perfect one.
For most of the 20th century Russia and indeed Ukraine too were one party communist dictatorships under the USSR and before that under the absolute monarchy of the Tsars
The Economist Democracy Index rates Russia as an Authoritarian Regime. Out of a choice of Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid Regime and Authoritarian Regime.
Democracy Matrix has Russia as 'Moderate Autocracy'. Out of Working Democracy Deficient Democracy Hybrid Regime Moderate Autocracy Hard Autocracy
If Russia was a dictatorship Putin would have got 100% of the vote in the last Russian presidential election, he got 88% and the Communists and New People 4% for their candidates and Liberal Democrats 3%
(The answer is probably "of course not". There's plenty of space where elections can happen without them being meaningful. Most dictators prefer to operate in that space, it's less embarrassing for them.)
No, as no party other than the Communist Party was allowed to contest its elections
Belarus? It is not a democracy if you allow opponents but fix the result
It is a flawed democracy, a true dictatorship would ban any alternative party from contesting its elections if it has any elections at all for government executive and legislative posts
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Speaking from experience, many young people have to move around in the first five or ten years of their careers - this is the nature of the job market these days. As such, they ussually end up either in rented flats or HMOs. My daughter is a good example of this having just moved out and across to the other side of the country for work. She actually could afford to buy (for reasons I explained a few days ago on here) but she and her partner don't want to yet until they know where they are going to finally settle.
Long term buying is far better (IMO). But the idea we don't need a private rental sector at all for all sorts of reasons is just wrong.
That's exactly the point I made above. But the idea that everyone renting now is doing so because they want to is plainly wrong - I rented for about four years longer than I wanted to, and it still required a gift worth £10,000s to get me on the ladder. There are other people in the same situation for decades because they don't have the intergenerational wealth to escape.
Let's say half of private landlords were forced to sell up in the next 5 years. What would that do to house prices in our cities? Would that make it easier for first time buyers? Would there be thousands of empty flats?
I actualy agree with your end aim. The problem is that if you forced 50% of landlords to sell up, whilst it might reduce the cost of housing a small amount, it would not reduce the cost of buying a house sufficiently for all those people who are currently renting a house to be able to afford one. So the cost of renting goes up and they are even worse off.
Also worth remembering that, for all I think the dream of owning a house is a noble one and one we should try to make reality for all who want it, mass house wonership is only a relatively recent, post war, phenomena.
Why would the cost of renting go up? We've just removed 50% of demand too, with half of renting households moving into their own properties. At the very least, I think we should try to stop the trend of increasing renting rates - we're moving rather rapidly towards a new type of feudalism.
But yes - I actually agree with Nick's point, which is that the only reason this is become such a big issue is because the model in the UK makes owning property almost essential. A large majority in Germany rent, but housing costs are much lower. That wouldn't be a necessarily bad outcome.
Er no you havene't. That is based on the assumption that the cost of housing drops sufficiently for those who are renting to be able to buy the house they are living in or a similar property. That is almost certainly not going to happen. So those families living in rented property suddenly find that the property is no longer available and they can't afford to buy anywhere else.
I don't see why that couldn't happen. You're suggesting that swathes of housing in Edinburgh would lie empty if it wasn't for the private rental market.
No, I am suggesting that the people who would buy it wuld not be the sorts of people who were having to rent it in the first place. How do they raise a deposit? You do realise that according to the FT and the Halifax it is now cheaper to rent than buy in the short to medium term?
This is getting a bit silly. All I'm suggesting is that the idea that private landlords provide some sort of service is nonsense. Whatever the form of tenure, housing demand is so high in our cities that homes will be occupied. It's just that the tax system + gross inequality will lead to the landlord class enjoying all the capital gains from housing, while those at the bottom suffer more and more.
But the point is that they do provide a very necessary service. There might be a lot wrong with theway it is done - much of which is being addressed by successive governments - but the fact is we need private landlords. There are large numbers of people who cannot afford to buy houses. Getting rid of private landlords won't change that even if a few who are now renting are able to buy. All you will do is put further restrictions on the rental market by reducing availability and drive up rents.
At what point do they stop providing a necessary service? 40% renting tenure? 80%? The full feudal?
Ah falling back on the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. I thought you were better than that.
I'm serious. For what proportion of people do you think renting is the optimal option over owning their own place?
I don't believe there is an optimal number. It is an entirely objective fact that does not lend itself to such subjective analysis. Some people want to rent. Other people have to rent because of circumstance or because it is the cheapest option. Yet more people are forced to rent because they cannot afford to buy. Getting rid of private landlords limits the choice of those who choose to rent and will do very little or nothing for those who have to rent.
Private landlords are necessary. Some might say a necessary evil even if I would not agree with that. You apparently think they are evil without being necessary. It is a very silly position to take.
Surely to a great extent that depends on the landlord?
A conscientious landlord with an understanding of what's needed, realistic about rents and sufficient money to keep the property in question - great.
But how many meet that criteria? I like to think I do. I also know full well my tenant would have had reason at times to think otherwise.
Registration and training might be one answer, but it would be no panacea. The question of liquid capital would remain an issue.
Why don't we have a vote, to see whether PB-ers, regulars and lurkers alike, would rather you or I stayed?
Seriously. It might be interesting. If you win, fair enough - I shall bugger off for good (and I really don't know how it would go)
Call a plebiscite!
On topic, haven't we learned our lesson that nothing good (and especially, no group closure) comes from such things?
lol
But we are surely as sophisicated as the Swiss, and they handle referenderrr just fine
I'm quite serious. Several of the mods want me to fuck off once and for all, they've made it plain with relentless bans on any pretext. Also, while I was away this time I became notably more productive, saw more friends, was nicer with my family and actually felt a little bit happier - not having pointless arguments with people I will never meet. My mood was sweeter. There was also a price, I was less informed about the latest news and politics, but right now, in our troubled times, that could be seen as a boon
So let's have a fun vote. If people want me to go so people like @CorrectHorseBattery can stay, then I will accept the verdict with grace (I hope) and depart this here parish for good
@TSE is making the error of assuming that anything about Scottish independence is rational or responsive to reason. It's not. Its driven by emotion and a sense of identity and resentment. The current unpopularity of the Labour government in Scotland is a concern. Labour are, of course, finding out that the Tories didn't make cuts (just) because they were nasty but because they had no choice. We have already had the WFA and now Labour are going after the allegedly sick. Personally, I am expecting support for independence to rise somewhat.
Osborne chose austerity because he was heartless, why the LDs went along with it is another question.
Without increased taxation Labour are lumbered with austerity. Now that is a choice, a foolhardy one in my opinion. Good luck at the next election when deaf, dumb and blind kids are begging on the streets because Labour removed their PIP.
This Labour Government don't think on their feet. They could sell increased taxation (and borrowing) as a necessity post Russia-USA alignment .
Oh for pity's sake. Does the plight of the feckless Reeves show you nothing? Osborne chose austerity because the country was bankrupt with unpayable contingent liabilities for an overgrown banking sector and a complete collapse in revenues from that source. The Lib Dems went along because there was no choice. Just like Reeves is doing now.
Austerity was an ideological choice. Many commentators, and not necessarily from the left, are opining that austerity was a grave error. There were other options. There are now. One of Reeves and Starmer's biggest millstones is the spectre of the Truss-Kwarteng budget. The Germans are going balls deep into borrowing for defence investment. We could do the same.
Germany has an almost balanced and a lot of room to borrow. Osborne inherited a 10% deficit, 70% of which was structural. We are and never were in any way comparable to Germany, their financial foundations are far, far stronger than ours. If the government (Tory or Labour) tried to go on a gigantic unfunded borrowing binge the markets would enforce discipline just as they did to Truss. That you think we could do what Germany is doing wrt borrowing for defence and infrastructure just shows how little you understand how bad our financial position is and has been since 2008.
The financial state of the economy must have been pretty good in 2023. How else could the Chancellor have significantly cut NI (twice).*
* My tongue is firmly in my cheek.
If NI cuts were affordable then but they are not now, taxes need to rise. This Government's greatest folly was suggesting the status quo could continue without tax rises. Your Party/ Government's manifesto pledge was that taxes could continue to fall whilst services would continue to rise. Either they were lying or their economic understanding was as deficient as you claim mine to be.
One of my key concerns over austerity both
now and fifteen years ago has been the consistent misunderstanding between cost of a service and value added from that service.. Binning HS2 was a case in pointReeves/ Starmer are making this error.
I understand the difference between the structural and cyclical deficit, but I see no other way to pay for the nice things we want like military aircraft, nuclear warheads, boots on the ground and adequate housing without borrowing. Borrowing for defence and infrastructure is the last resort way to generate growth. How have the growth stats been since 2008 austerity kicked in? And growth whilst outside the largest single friction free trading block available to use is even more daunting. Remind me which side of that fence you were on over that event. As an economist help me understand why leaving the EU was optimal to domestic growth and the balance of payments deficit of the UK.
Labour have put taxes up, just on farmers and business owners
Employer NI wouldn't have been a route I would have followed, but I have no problem with 20% inheritance tax for properties over £3m. The Government need to be looking at wealth taxes too. Why are Labour so timid?
Because either a wealth tax includes housing and it's politically disastrous or it doesn't and raises pennies at the cost of huge damage to the economy as the wealthy move their business, shares, etc out of the country.
The primary domestic dwelling could easily be exempted.
Then it wouldn't raise much but would destroy the already damaged private rental market, hitting the young and poor the most.
There's no easy way to raise the already record tax burden - if there were, the rapacious Labour Party or the only slightly less greedy Conservatives would have tried it to exhaustion and beyond.
Why would a 'private rental market' be damaged. If landlords sold up, a family requiring a home would move in. One less in the queue. The PRS is simply an investment vehicle for a particular group who could put their money into more productive areas of the economy. It the similar argument for those who under occupy a property as 'it's their pension' but never use it as a pension.
This is bizarre attitude that you get from private landlords everywhere. Sure, there is a minority of highly mobile workers who need rental properties to move around the country/globe to exploit job opportunities, but for everyone else owning a property is far more desirable because of the massive financial advantages of doing so.
It's not like the flat disappears off the face of the earth when the landlord sells up. The size of the private rental market now is a function of gross wealth inequality, not demand for renting relative to ownership.
There speaks someone completely out of touch , well seen you have your own house and plenty cash and no idea what would happen to the the poor sods who cannot afford to buy and have the rental houses pulled from under their feet.
^ exactly the kind of person I was talking about. People who cannot comprehend that the reason so many people are renting is because more and more of the housing stock is being bought up by wealthy landlords, restricting the supply for first time buyers.
Speaking from experience, many young people have to move around in the first five or ten years of their careers - this is the nature of the job market these days. As such, they ussually end up either in rented flats or HMOs. My daughter is a good example of this having just moved out and across to the other side of the country for work. She actually could afford to buy (for reasons I explained a few days ago on here) but she and her partner don't want to yet until they know where they are going to finally settle.
Long term buying is far better (IMO). But the idea we don't need a private rental sector at all for all sorts of reasons is just wrong.
That's exactly the point I made above. But the idea that everyone renting now is doing so because they want to is plainly wrong - I rented for about four years longer than I wanted to, and it still required a gift worth £10,000s to get me on the ladder. There are other people in the same situation for decades because they don't have the intergenerational wealth to escape.
Let's say half of private landlords were forced to sell up in the next 5 years. What would that do to house prices in our cities? Would that make it easier for first time buyers? Would there be thousands of empty flats?
I actualy agree with your end aim. The problem is that if you forced 50% of landlords to sell up, whilst it might reduce the cost of housing a small amount, it would not reduce the cost of buying a house sufficiently for all those people who are currently renting a house to be able to afford one. So the cost of renting goes up and they are even worse off.
Also worth remembering that, for all I think the dream of owning a house is a noble one and one we should try to make reality for all who want it, mass house wonership is only a relatively recent, post war, phenomena.
Why would the cost of renting go up? We've just removed 50% of demand too, with half of renting households moving into their own properties. At the very least, I think we should try to stop the trend of increasing renting rates - we're moving rather rapidly towards a new type of feudalism.
But yes - I actually agree with Nick's point, which is that the only reason this is become such a big issue is because the model in the UK makes owning property almost essential. A large majority in Germany rent, but housing costs are much lower. That wouldn't be a necessarily bad outcome.
Er no you havene't. That is based on the assumption that the cost of housing drops sufficiently for those who are renting to be able to buy the house they are living in or a similar property. That is almost certainly not going to happen. So those families living in rented property suddenly find that the property is no longer available and they can't afford to buy anywhere else.
I don't see why that couldn't happen. You're suggesting that swathes of housing in Edinburgh would lie empty if it wasn't for the private rental market.
No, I am suggesting that the people who would buy it wuld not be the sorts of people who were having to rent it in the first place. How do they raise a deposit? You do realise that according to the FT and the Halifax it is now cheaper to rent than buy in the short to medium term?
This is getting a bit silly. All I'm suggesting is that the idea that private landlords provide some sort of service is nonsense. Whatever the form of tenure, housing demand is so high in our cities that homes will be occupied. It's just that the tax system + gross inequality will lead to the landlord class enjoying all the capital gains from housing, while those at the bottom suffer more and more.
But the point is that they do provide a very necessary service. There might be a lot wrong with theway it is done - much of which is being addressed by successive governments - but the fact is we need private landlords. There are large numbers of people who cannot afford to buy houses. Getting rid of private landlords won't change that even if a few who are now renting are able to buy. All you will do is put further restrictions on the rental market by reducing availability and drive up rents.
At what point do they stop providing a necessary service? 40% renting tenure? 80%? The full feudal?
Ah falling back on the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. I thought you were better than that.
I'm serious. For what proportion of people do you think renting is the optimal option over owning their own place?
I don't believe there is an optimal number. It is an entirely objective fact that does not lend itself to such subjective analysis. Some people want to rent. Other people have to rent because of circumstance or because it is the cheapest option. Yet more people are forced to rent because they cannot afford to buy. Getting rid of private landlords limits the choice of those who choose to rent and will do very little or nothing for those who have to rent.
Private landlords are necessary. Some might say a necessary evil even if I would not agree with that. You apparently think they are evil without being necessary. It is a very silly position to take.
Surely to a great extent that depends on the landlord?
A conscientious landlord with an understanding of what's needed, realistic about rents and sufficient money to keep the property in question - great.
But how many meet that criteria? I like to think I do. I also know full well my tenant would have had reason at times to think otherwise.
Registration and training might be one answer, but it would be no panacea. The question of liquid capital would remain an issue.
I would agree. I have lived under bad landlords and good ones. My argument with Eabhal is his contention that private landlords are per se a bad thing and that by driving them out of business we would improve things for those currently renting. I believe this is clearly an ill considered assertion.
Why don't we have a vote, to see whether PB-ers, regulars and lurkers alike, would rather you or I stayed?
Seriously. It might be interesting. If you win, fair enough - I shall bugger off for good (and I really don't know how it would go)
Call a plebiscite!
I'll play.
I would have to vote for Leon to stay. Not because I value him any more than BCH (sorry Leon) but because on principle no one should be forced out to pander for someone who threatens to leave.
If BCH wants to leave of their own accord then so be it.
Why don't we have a vote, to see whether PB-ers, regulars and lurkers alike, would rather you or I stayed?
Seriously. It might be interesting. If you win, fair enough - I shall bugger off for good (and I really don't know how it would go)
Call a plebiscite!
There is no need for anybody to leave. PB is big enough for @Leon, @BatteryCorrectHorse , and every other similar individual. Plus @Sandpit, @isam, @Charles, and everybody else who has left voluntarily.
There is space for everyone here. Well almost everyone, maybe not Saturday Russian trolls.
But why not consume sparingly? Come to the site, read a bit of news, post some things, argue for a while, do a little trolling, but ration the post count. Like enjoying a drink without killing your liver. Consume in moderation.
It’s when one or two people take over the feed to the exclusion of everything else, and just go and on, that others switch off.
Why don't we have a vote, to see whether PB-ers, regulars and lurkers alike, would rather you or I stayed?
Seriously. It might be interesting. If you win, fair enough - I shall bugger off for good (and I really don't know how it would go)
Call a plebiscite!
There is no need for anybody to leave. PB is big enough for @Leon, @BatteryCorrectHorse , and every other similar individual. Plus @Sandpit, @isam, @Charles, and everybody else who has left voluntarily.
Good evening
First post I have read tonight and I could not agree more
I trust the moderators implicitly to regulate their site
I do not like to read any poster wanting another to leave as that is unacceptable, and the rule should be if you do not like or agree with a poster just read past their post/s
Ran across it today and was surprised I hadn't heard of it - on the mainland, but no road in.
Yes, it’s the bit just north of Mallaig. I’ve been through it as a detour on the way back from Skye, and looked at it from the island. Beautiful, like the entire North West coast.
Why don't we have a vote, to see whether PB-ers, regulars and lurkers alike, would rather you or I stayed?
Seriously. It might be interesting. If you win, fair enough - I shall bugger off for good (and I really don't know how it would go)
Call a plebiscite!
There is no need for anybody to leave. PB is big enough for @Leon, @BatteryCorrectHorse , and every other similar individual. Plus @Sandpit, @isam, @Charles, and everybody else who has left voluntarily.
Good evening
First post I have read tonight and I could not agree more
I trust the moderators implicitly to regulate their site
I do not like to read any poster wanting another to leave as that is unacceptable, and the rule should be if you do not like or agree with a poster just read past their post/s
Why don't we have a vote, to see whether PB-ers, regulars and lurkers alike, would rather you or I stayed?
Seriously. It might be interesting. If you win, fair enough - I shall bugger off for good (and I really don't know how it would go)
Call a plebiscite!
There is no need for anybody to leave. PB is big enough for @Leon, @BatteryCorrectHorse , and every other similar individual. Plus @Sandpit, @isam, @Charles, and everybody else who has left voluntarily.
Good evening
First post I have read tonight and I could not agree more
I trust the moderators implicitly to regulate their site
I do not like to read any poster wanting another to leave as that is unacceptable, and the rule should be if you do not like or agree with a poster just read past their post/s
Ran across it today and was surprised I hadn't heard of it - on the mainland, but no road in.
Yes, it’s the bit just north of Mallaig. I’ve been through it as a detour on the way back from Skye, and looked at it from the island. Beautiful, like the entire North West coast.
You can catch a boat from Mallaig. The pub has recently been taken over by the community after the previous owner (who was somewhat controversial) departed. Nice place with some very fine hills, including Ladhar Bheinn, one of the most celebrated Munros.
Comments
https://newrepublic.com/post/186444/conservative-poll-rasmussen-secretly-worked-trump-team
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This is possibly rhe worst Welsh team I have ever seen, but still, England crushed them brutally and skilfully
Soz boz apolibobs
Pollsters do not have to publish data tables in America.
All the pollsters who do publish data tables are finding Trump's ratings falling.
NEW: Seven in ten Americans now feel the economy is in a bad state or is worsening
J.L. Partners for @DailyMail, 1,019 registered voters, March 5-7, 2025
https://x.com/J_L_Partners/status/1900199096473846020
🇺🇸 National poll by Quinnipiac
President Trump
🟢 Approve: 42% (-3)
🟤 Disapprove: 53% (+4)
Among independents: 36-58%
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1900249273003900999
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/03/13/the-economy-may-no-longer-be-donalds-trump-card/
You think this shambles is a rugby team?
Now, structural reform
It was even worse than Italy versus France last week. There was something more crushing about the way England just walked tries over the line. Perhaps it's because you normally and justifiably expect Wales to up their game against England - especially in Cardiff
But this? Wow
Build more houses and the cost of owning a home, and the cost of renting one, can come down. Without building, its just tinkering at the edges.
But England are very young and full of talent, for the first time in a long long time I am optimistic
Fin Smith is world class and then we have Marcus doing his mazey stuff, and a host of new, strong players
And we very nearly won the Slam in the Under 20s. Hopeful signs
His average approval is 47.7%. Disapproval 48.7%.
Napolitan's mission is "Through our groundbreaking Counterpolling, we're asking questions* that no one else is asking, and giving leaders and organizations the data they need to break free from the misleading messaging of out of touch Elites."
* i.e. totally biased
But they are not Rasmussen.
On the Virginias the Australians have quite a strong hand, as the USA wants use of their new submarine base which is part of the programme.
Currently aiui on the construction side we have Astute 6 in the water to be commissioned later this year, Astute 7 due for commissioning in 2026, and 3 Dreadnaughts under construction at different stages (the first one already in the hall having its hull put together from modules).
The thing with the challenges is the next generation nuclear reactor at RR.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/huge-crowds-join-anti-government-rally-belgrade-after-sporadic-violence-2025-03-15/
France are looking averagely good, but not great. Dupont is so crucial to their game
"Nucular" Ballistic Missile Subs:
USA 18
UK 4
"Nucular" Attack Subs:
USA 51
UK 6
Conventional Attack Subs:
Aus 6
Can 4
Some heroic stuff from our North British brothers
Even better than brilliant Test cricket, I think. More intense
On the other hand when it is bad it is REALLY bad
Hi Sean 👍
I will be off.
If @CorrectHorseBattery comes back, I'm off for good
Seriously. It might be interesting. If you win, fair enough - I shall bugger off for good (and I really don't know how it would go)
Call a plebiscite!
After about 12hrs the police finally found someone to outrank the local Lodge and cleared them out.
Don't you know?
I ain't never gonna let you go
Don't go"
- Yazoo.
Private landlords are necessary. Some might say a necessary evil even if I would not agree with that. You apparently think they are evil without being necessary. It is a very silly position to take.
If I got on my knees and I pleaded with you
Not to go but to stay in my are-arms
Would you walk out the door like you did once before?
Or would this time be different, would you sta-a-ay?
Don't go (Please stay)
Don't go
A conscientious landlord with an understanding of what's needed, realistic about rents and sufficient money to keep the property in question - great.
But how many meet that criteria? I like to think I do. I also know full well my tenant would have had reason at times to think otherwise.
Registration and training might be one answer, but it would be no panacea. The question of liquid capital would remain an issue.
But we are surely as sophisicated as the Swiss, and they handle referenderrr just fine
I'm quite serious. Several of the mods want me to fuck off once and for all, they've made it plain with relentless bans on any pretext. Also, while I was away this time I became notably more productive, saw more friends, was nicer with my family and actually felt a little bit happier - not having pointless arguments with people I will never meet. My mood was sweeter. There was also a price, I was less informed about the latest news and politics, but right now, in our troubled times, that could be seen as a boon
So let's have a fun vote. If people want me to go so people like @CorrectHorseBattery can stay, then I will accept the verdict with grace (I hope) and depart this here parish for good
Might be an amusing way to pass a Sunday on PB
But if you insist. Horse.
I would have to vote for Leon to stay. Not because I value him any more than BCH (sorry Leon) but because on principle no one should be forced out to pander for someone who threatens to leave.
If BCH wants to leave of their own accord then so be it.
But we need to do it properly
Ten minutes in and Leon captures the narrative with a vote about Leon. Leon versus someone else (anyone else)
But why not consume sparingly? Come to the site, read a bit of news, post some things, argue for a while, do a little trolling, but ration the post count. Like enjoying a drink without killing your liver. Consume in moderation.
It’s when one or two people take over the feed to the exclusion of everything else, and just go and on, that others switch off.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casapueblo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoydart
Ran across it today and was surprised I hadn't heard of it - on the mainland, but no road in.
I didn't say that. Someone else did. I came in with a travel anecdote and then rugby chat. But I'm not allowed to react to someone saying that? Pfff
First post I have read tonight and I could not agree more
I trust the moderators implicitly to regulate their site
I do not like to read any poster wanting another to leave as that is unacceptable, and the rule should be if you do not like or agree with a poster just read past their post/s
US launches wave of air strikes on Yemen's Houthis
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05mvr3j3yro
(And that's without any admiration for the Houthis.)
How time flies and good you are settled in ' God's own country' as my wife and Scots would say
Also interested you are standing for Holyrood in what will be a fascinating election next year
Acid vibes worthy of a Roland TB-303 in full flow circa 1988.