It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
Do you mean you would make it virtually impossible for a foreign national to stay in the UK long term? Making it virtually impossible for them to come would destroy the tourist industry, destroy the higher education sector and put a severe dampener on the Commonwealth Games in a few months’ time.
Yes - I'm only talking about immigration, I'm not suggesting banning tourists. In practical terms, I'd make it really difficult to come for more than say 90 days, probably via really tough salary rules, with none of the ridiculous "shortage occupation" exemptions.
If you can't come for more than 90 days, then that means no overseas students, which means the universities go bust and a big hit to our balance of payments.
It's all a bit Daily Express from the Independent.
Their latest data for their Schlock ! Horror ! headline for their DEAL WITH IT NOW !!! crisis is from 2024, and their analysed samples for the British Population are three samples taken from the toilets at the Cheltenham Festival.
Can anyone explain how on May 31st 2026, 2024 was "last year"?
Their graph shows that the % of the population taking cocaine in 2024 was the lowest in their entire history going back to 2015 (no data for pandemic).
They have a strong point about high concentration cocaine, and a possible link to a significant increase in resultant deaths, but can tell us nothing about 2025 and 2026.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
The London "house" price fall is mostly a flat price fall because people are scared (correctly but perhaps overly) by leasehold issues and rising service charges. Houses here are still pretty much unaffordable here to those without already owning or in the top few per cent of jobs.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
"Tories to stop criminals spending benefits on alcohol Pre-loaded ‘ration cards’ will prevent those with convictions linked to drink, gambling or drugs from funding their habits" (£)
Nope. Ultimately, money's fungible. Need to stop the addiction(s) otherwise this is pointless.
Also a slippery slope to spending money on "approved" things which is just not a sensible way of dealing with charity/benefits.
I'm not sure that's true.
Nobody is more aware of the laziness and corruption of the lower classes than me, but empirically, the proposal could show positive results.
In America, government assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/aka food stamps) is doled out in roughly the way that the Conservatives are proposing, and studies generally show low, usually very low, levels of abuse, at any rate for a government program.
For example, this study from the University of Chicago Becker Friedman Institute found that cash assistance (like SSI) caused a 20-30% increase in emergency department visits for drug and alcohol use. By contrast, SNAP benefits, which are doled out electronically did not result in any increase in substance-related hospital visits.
And again a National Center for Biotechnology Information study claimed that rather than funding drug or alcohol habits, the expansion of SNAP and the removal of drug-related eligibility bans actually correlate with reduced rates of substance use disorders and improved access to addiction treatments.
Finally, according to the Brookings Institution, the majority of SNAP dollars are spent on staple goods, with the overall spending patterns of recipients closely mirroring those of non-recipients.
So rather than making assumptions about the habits of the great unwashed, it's generally better to look at what actually happens.
And the evidence is that this is a policy that could conceivably work, depending on how it's implemented.
What's the baseline though? Presumably benefits recipients already spend roughly in line with their non-benefits peers.
So I get given a voucher worth £100 - that is usable by others.
I would be sold for £80-90 and the alcoholic will use that to get their alcohol.
I'm sorry but have these people ever lived in the real world
You link a debit card to a bank account, rather than giving out vouchers. The card only works on items not subject to VAT, supermarkets program their tills as such.
But yes it’s a simple solution to a complex problem, and there are definitely second-order and third-order effects which don’t get properly thought through by policymakers in advance.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
And the basis for that projected outcome?
The ONS figures are available publically so someone must have taken those figures, applied modelling to come out with your suggested outcome. Care to share?
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
It's all a bit Daily Express from the Independent.
Their latest data for their Schlock ! Horror ! headline for their DEAL WITH IT NOW !!! crisis is from 2024, and their analysed samples for the British Population are three samples taken from the toilets at the Cheltenham Festival.
Can anyone explain how on May 31st 2026, 2024 was "last year"?
Their graph shows that the % of the population taking cocaine in 2024 was the lowest in their entire history going back to 2015 (no data for pandemic).
They have a strong point about high concentration cocaine, and a possible link to a significant increase in resultant deaths, but can tell us nothing about 2025 and 2026.
I do not think "two out of three" means there were only three samples, although I guess it could do.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
Do you mean you would make it virtually impossible for a foreign national to stay in the UK long term? Making it virtually impossible for them to come would destroy the tourist industry, destroy the higher education sector and put a severe dampener on the Commonwealth Games in a few months’ time.
Yes - I'm only talking about immigration, I'm not suggesting banning tourists. In practical terms, I'd make it really difficult to come for more than say 90 days, probably via really tough salary rules, with none of the ridiculous "shortage occupation" exemptions.
"Tories to stop criminals spending benefits on alcohol Pre-loaded ‘ration cards’ will prevent those with convictions linked to drink, gambling or drugs from funding their habits" (£)
Nope. Ultimately, money's fungible. Need to stop the addiction(s) otherwise this is pointless.
Also a slippery slope to spending money on "approved" things which is just not a sensible way of dealing with charity/benefits.
I'm not sure that's true.
Nobody is more aware of the laziness and corruption of the lower classes than me, but empirically, the proposal could show positive results.
In America, government assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/aka food stamps) is doled out in roughly the way that the Conservatives are proposing, and studies generally show low, usually very low, levels of abuse, at any rate for a government program.
For example, this study from the University of Chicago Becker Friedman Institute found that cash assistance (like SSI) caused a 20-30% increase in emergency department visits for drug and alcohol use. By contrast, SNAP benefits, which are doled out electronically did not result in any increase in substance-related hospital visits.
And again a National Center for Biotechnology Information study claimed that rather than funding drug or alcohol habits, the expansion of SNAP and the removal of drug-related eligibility bans actually correlate with reduced rates of substance use disorders and improved access to addiction treatments.
Finally, according to the Brookings Institution, the majority of SNAP dollars are spent on staple goods, with the overall spending patterns of recipients closely mirroring those of non-recipients.
So rather than making assumptions about the habits of the great unwashed, it's generally better to look at what actually happens.
And the evidence is that this is a policy that could conceivably work, depending on how it's implemented.
What's the baseline though? Presumably benefits recipients already spend roughly in line with their non-benefits peers.
So I get given a voucher worth £100 - that is usable by others.
I would be sold for £80-90 and the alcoholic will use that to get their alcohol.
I'm sorry but have these people ever lived in the real world
You link a debit card to a bank account, rather than giving out vouchers. The card only works on items not subject to VAT, supermarkets program their tills as such.
But yes it’s a simple solution to a complex problem, and there are definitely second-order and third-order effects which don’t get properly thought through by policymakers in advance.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Surely that implies lots on >95% mortgages, which I thought was a rarity these days.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Surely that implies lots on >95% mortgages, which I thought was a rarity these days.
There are lots. The Government's own Mortgage Guarantee Scheme promotes 95% mortgages.
Dr. Brian Wolpin, presenter of the daraxonrasib study, received a standing ovation DURING his talk after he stated the survival benefit for PDAC patients. It was sustained. Cheering. I have never see anything like it in the middle of a talk. https://x.com/adamfeuerstein/status/2061184024668672253
Its not just the first useful treatment for pancreatic cancer, but also the first successful result for a new category of drugs ("molecular glues"), which greatly extends the type of biological targets that drugs can be designed for.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
I’ve been banned from the UK. I tried to get on a flight to London to attend SXSW London and give a speech at Oxford. I’ve been banned for criticizing Israel. Are we free anymore? This is oppression of Western citizens by our own governments on behalf of a different country!
He's a odd duck, though. Conservative in his youth. Also uncle of Hasan Piker, whose presence in the country is also banned.
He isn't my cup of tea, but as far as I know he stays within the lines* compared Hasan Piker who spews some really nasty stuff, but the whole banning people, I would hope it is reserved for people who terrorists, terrorist recruitors etc. He is coming to rant, I mean debtae, at the Oxford Union, I would feel sorry for the students as he isn't a good debater.
* He must do as he he has stayed on YouTube for donkeys years including ability to make money and live stream. They aren't as tolerant as Twitch or Kick particularly if you get big, you don't even need to say anything bad on YouTube itself to at get demonetarised, saying racist stuff outside of YouTube can still get YouTube to decide you can't have get ad revenue.
The more mental Zionist types are saying it’s impossible that Uygur has been banned for criticising Israel because Shabs is Home Secretary. Either the ungrateful sods have not been following her journey to the heart of government, or they‘re reflexively bullshitting cos that’s what they do.
The fact Hasan and Cenk say they were banned from entry into the UK “at the behest of Israel” is hilarious considering this 👇🏽 is who banned from entering the UK
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
Yes, a quick market crash would possibly do less damage than an extended period of predictable deflation.
It's all a bit Daily Express from the Independent.
Their latest data for their Schlock ! Horror ! headline for their DEAL WITH IT NOW !!! crisis is from 2024, and their analysed samples for the British Population are three samples taken from the toilets at the Cheltenham Festival.
Can anyone explain how on May 31st 2026, 2024 was "last year"?
Their graph shows that the % of the population taking cocaine in 2024 was the lowest in their entire history going back to 2015 (no data for pandemic).
They have a strong point about high concentration cocaine, and a possible link to a significant increase in resultant deaths, but can tell us nothing about 2025 and 2026.
I do not think "two out of three" means there were only three samples, although I guess it could do.
From the article, they did 3 samples with the most detailed analysis:
At Cheltenham on Gold Cup day in March, The Independent used test wipes on surfaces in toilets to find traces of cocaine, before collecting a dozen samples which were sent for testing at the Kingston Analytical Services Toxicology (KAST) at Kingston University.
Initial tests detected cocaine in almost every sample. Three were then sent for nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) testing, which revealed that two, including one taken from a baby changing facility at the Best Mate Enclosure, had 85 per cent purity.
Dr Arijac Durrant, a postdoctoral researcher at the university who did the testing, told The Independent: “Here are two samples of high-quality cocaine which is above what we usually see at street level. I’m not a medical expert, but I would suggest a heightened risk of an overdose for someone taking this drug who is used to taking a lower purity substance.
I think the Indy has 3 samples, and everything else is published data from at the latest 2024.
The convincing thing imo is the constant increase in deaths from 2015 to 2024 (from just under 400 to just over 1200).
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
They know that now !!!!
They’re a nice couple but when it comes to money and investing they are fools.
In nominal terms my house has gone up a fair bit since 2004 but in real terms it is pretty static. That’s fine. It doesn’t matter to me. It’s paid off, nice house nice area. We may stay or move.
The real gain I had was in the three years from 2001 to 2004 when I first moved in. Remortgaged after two year fix ended and the valuer for the mortgage lender reckoned it had gone up in value by about 70% in two years. Utterly nuts.
It's all a bit Daily Express from the Independent.
Their latest data for their Schlock ! Horror ! headline for their DEAL WITH IT NOW !!! crisis is from 2024, and their analysed samples for the British Population are three samples taken from the toilets at the Cheltenham Festival.
Can anyone explain how on May 31st 2026, 2024 was "last year"?
Their graph shows that the % of the population taking cocaine in 2024 was the lowest in their entire history going back to 2015 (no data for pandemic).
They have a strong point about high concentration cocaine, and a possible link to a significant increase in resultant deaths, but can tell us nothing about 2025 and 2026.
I do not think "two out of three" means there were only three samples, although I guess it could do.
From the article, they did 3 samples with the most detailed analysis:
At Cheltenham on Gold Cup day in March, The Independent used test wipes on surfaces in toilets to find traces of cocaine, before collecting a dozen samples which were sent for testing at the Kingston Analytical Services Toxicology (KAST) at Kingston University.
Initial tests detected cocaine in almost every sample. Three were then sent for nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) testing, which revealed that two, including one taken from a baby changing facility at the Best Mate Enclosure, had 85 per cent purity.
Dr Arijac Durrant, a postdoctoral researcher at the university who did the testing, told The Independent: “Here are two samples of high-quality cocaine which is above what we usually see at street level. I’m not a medical expert, but I would suggest a heightened risk of an overdose for someone taking this drug who is used to taking a lower purity substance.
I think the Indy has 3 samples, and everything else is published data from at the latest 2024.
The convincing thing imo is the constant increase in deaths from 2015 to 2024 (from just under 400 to just over 1200).
What's the sample size for the drug survey? If it's only 1 in 40-50 then the MoE must be quite high. So usage looks pretty constant.
The Trump admin extracted a payoff from Bosnia's government in exchange for getting the Bosnian Serbs to okay a gas pipeline: Bosnia gave the contract to a US firm run by Trump '20 truther lawyer Jesse Binnall and Michael Flynn's brother. https://x.com/dfriedman33/status/2061208183570374885
The Trump admin extracted a payoff from Bosnia's government in exchange for getting the Bosnian Serbs to okay a gas pipeline: Bosnia gave the contract to a US firm run by Trump '20 truther lawyer Jesse Binnall and Michael Flynn's brother. https://x.com/dfriedman33/status/2061208183570374885
Once it’s built they’ll be back for more
‘That’s a nice pipeline you’ve got there. Lovely pipeline. Be a shame if something happened to it’
May be getting rid of some old games and after trying to work out the correct way found the gex.co.uk website. Kind of interesting to compare prices. Likely not going to sell this (I do occasionally dust off the PS2 and play them) but together Shadow Hearts and Shadow Hearts Covenant would go for over £50 despite being rather old.
Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles (Mega Drive) have a combined price over £47.
Anyway, in the unlikely event that anyone here wants any Mega Drive games do give me a bell as I'll probably otherwise be shifting them by selling online.
On the subject of restricted benefit cards my wife, who has been very ill recently, appears to be celiac and her diagnosis was flagged in 2020 but overlooked due to covid pressure
She has had an endyscope and we have moved to a gluten free diet and she is showing signs of recovery which we are very pleased about
The Wales NHS provides prescriptions for celiac patients to buy the more expensive gluten free food and one Welsh Board has introduced a credit card for this scheme
These are the details and it is expected to be rolled out across Wales
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
Fixing problems causes problems, yes, but our currently obscenely high prices cause massive problems and much suffering and unaffordability today.
The time period quoted of 2017 to 2026 is not "suddenly" it is a full decade. From 2021 to 2026, also quoted, is not "suddenly" either, it is half a decade. During that time prices have gone from obscenely high to obscenely high but not quite as high, that is still a huge problem that needs fixing as rapidly as possible to address the huge problems of unaffordability that exist today.
If someone is driving at 100mph down a residential road then would you consider them slowing down to 80mph down the same residential road to be the problem solved? Should we be grateful for that and think "that's good"?
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
That’s fine and all but I thought the answer to our problems was growth? The reason why Britain is all but ungovernable is because everyone wants contradictory things.
I’ve been banned from the UK. I tried to get on a flight to London to attend SXSW London and give a speech at Oxford. I’ve been banned for criticizing Israel. Are we free anymore? This is oppression of Western citizens by our own governments on behalf of a different country!
He's a odd duck, though. Conservative in his youth. Also uncle of Hasan Piker, whose presence in the country is also banned.
He isn't my cup of tea, but as far as I know he stays within the lines* compared Hasan Piker who spews some really nasty stuff, but the whole banning people, I would hope it is reserved for people who terrorists, terrorist recruitors etc. He is coming to rant, I mean debtae, at the Oxford Union, I would feel sorry for the students as he isn't a good debater.
* He must do as he he has stayed on YouTube for donkeys years including ability to make money and live stream. They aren't as tolerant as Twitch or Kick particularly if you get big, you don't even need to say anything bad on YouTube itself to at get demonetarised, saying racist stuff outside of YouTube can still get YouTube to decide you can't have get ad revenue.
The more mental Zionist types are saying it’s impossible that Uygur has been banned for criticising Israel because Shabs is Home Secretary. Either the ungrateful sods have not been following her journey to the heart of government, or they‘re reflexively bullshitting cos that’s what they do.
The fact Hasan and Cenk say they were banned from entry into the UK “at the behest of Israel” is hilarious considering this 👇🏽 is who banned from entering the UK
Well found! If it's true that Cenk has bee banned then Labour are finished. This would be a whole new level of Labour stupidity. So much so I wonder whether it might be an administrative mistake? He's entertaining to read but someone less subversive would be difficult to find.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
That’s fine and all but I thought the answer to our problems was growth? The reason why Britain is all but ungovernable is because everyone wants contradictory things.
We need growth per capita.
Migration is a side-story to that. Skilled migration can help, but we need to start measuring per capita growth as the headline and not absolute figures.
I’ve been banned from the UK. I tried to get on a flight to London to attend SXSW London and give a speech at Oxford. I’ve been banned for criticizing Israel. Are we free anymore? This is oppression of Western citizens by our own governments on behalf of a different country!
He's a odd duck, though. Conservative in his youth. Also uncle of Hasan Piker, whose presence in the country is also banned.
He isn't my cup of tea, but as far as I know he stays within the lines* compared Hasan Piker who spews some really nasty stuff, but the whole banning people, I would hope it is reserved for people who terrorists, terrorist recruitors etc. He is coming to rant, I mean debtae, at the Oxford Union, I would feel sorry for the students as he isn't a good debater.
* He must do as he he has stayed on YouTube for donkeys years including ability to make money and live stream. They aren't as tolerant as Twitch or Kick particularly if you get big, you don't even need to say anything bad on YouTube itself to at get demonetarised, saying racist stuff outside of YouTube can still get YouTube to decide you can't have get ad revenue.
The more mental Zionist types are saying it’s impossible that Uygur has been banned for criticising Israel because Shabs is Home Secretary. Either the ungrateful sods have not been following her journey to the heart of government, or they‘re reflexively bullshitting cos that’s what they do.
The fact Hasan and Cenk say they were banned from entry into the UK “at the behest of Israel” is hilarious considering this 👇🏽 is who banned from entering the UK
Well found! If it's true that Cenk has bee banned then Labour are finished. This would be a whole new level of Labour stupidity. So much so I wonder whether it might be an administrative mistake? He's entertaining to read but someone less subversive would be difficult to find.
Of all the reasons that Labour might be finished then banning a 9/11 "truther" who claims Jews were behind 9/11 is hardly top of the list as to why that is so.
I appear to have made friends with a mouse. He and I have been at odds for a couple of weeks as he insists on passing my sight line whilst I am sitting in the garden at night.he is gradually understanding that I won’t kill him brutally and is getting more bold. He is very sweet, reminds me of one of my old dogs, obviously smaller, but good luck to him, he goes about his business and isn’t a pest. So far. I have named him potato after one of my niece’s favourite cartoon characters.
I’m sure there is something about politics and life there somewhere. Or not.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I agree. The trouble is that successive Governments over the last 30 years screwed the pension system so badly that people were looking around for alternative means to pay for their retirement.
For me a house is a home not an investment but I understand entirely why others have been forced to look at it in a different way. .
It's all a bit Daily Express from the Independent.
Their latest data for their Schlock ! Horror ! headline for their DEAL WITH IT NOW !!! crisis is from 2024, and their analysed samples for the British Population are three samples taken from the toilets at the Cheltenham Festival.
Can anyone explain how on May 31st 2026, 2024 was "last year"?
Their graph shows that the % of the population taking cocaine in 2024 was the lowest in their entire history going back to 2015 (no data for pandemic).
They have a strong point about high concentration cocaine, and a possible link to a significant increase in resultant deaths, but can tell us nothing about 2025 and 2026.
I do not think "two out of three" means there were only three samples, although I guess it could do.
From the article, they did 3 samples with the most detailed analysis:
At Cheltenham on Gold Cup day in March, The Independent used test wipes on surfaces in toilets to find traces of cocaine, before collecting a dozen samples which were sent for testing at the Kingston Analytical Services Toxicology (KAST) at Kingston University.
Initial tests detected cocaine in almost every sample. Three were then sent for nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) testing, which revealed that two, including one taken from a baby changing facility at the Best Mate Enclosure, had 85 per cent purity.
Dr Arijac Durrant, a postdoctoral researcher at the university who did the testing, told The Independent: “Here are two samples of high-quality cocaine which is above what we usually see at street level. I’m not a medical expert, but I would suggest a heightened risk of an overdose for someone taking this drug who is used to taking a lower purity substance.
I think the Indy has 3 samples, and everything else is published data from at the latest 2024.
The convincing thing imo is the constant increase in deaths from 2015 to 2024 (from just under 400 to just over 1200).
Just to point out that we are sending the large scale importers of this stuff to 20 year terms in prison, when it is the everyday use of a chunk of the mainstream establishment of the sorts of people who attend big meetings race courses.
This is the modern version of prostitution in the old days: blame the supplier, render invisible the smart set user.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
"Relatively" doing a heck of a lot of work there.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
That’s fine and all but I thought the answer to our problems was growth? The reason why Britain is all but ungovernable is because everyone wants contradictory things.
We need growth per capita.
Migration is a side-story to that. Skilled migration can help, but we need to start measuring per capita growth as the headline and not absolute figures.
Yeah we do but absolute growth is the only thing that matters when it comes to paying off debt in a timely manner.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
"Relatively" doing a heck of a lot of work there.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
Have we noted this from Peter Kellner - a sobering summary of the capacity of party members to elect the dimmest and most off putting candidate available as leader.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
That’s fine and all but I thought the answer to our problems was growth? The reason why Britain is all but ungovernable is because everyone wants contradictory things.
We need growth per capita.
Migration is a side-story to that. Skilled migration can help, but we need to start measuring per capita growth as the headline and not absolute figures.
Yeah we do but absolute growth is the only thing that matters when it comes to paying off debt in a timely manner.
It’s all very well being a smaller richer country but we still owe nearly £3trillion
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
"Relatively" doing a heck of a lot of work there.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
4.5x feels reasonable. Save 1x borrow 3.5x.
How the hell are young people supposed to save an entire year's salary while simultaneously paying rent? That's ridiculous.
2x salary as it was in the early 90s means that to do a 10% deposit means you need to save 20% of your annual salary which is far more plausible. 3x should be the upper limit of what is affordable.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
That’s fine and all but I thought the answer to our problems was growth? The reason why Britain is all but ungovernable is because everyone wants contradictory things.
We need growth per capita.
Migration is a side-story to that. Skilled migration can help, but we need to start measuring per capita growth as the headline and not absolute figures.
Yeah we do but absolute growth is the only thing that matters when it comes to paying off debt in a timely manner.
It’s all very well being a smaller richer country but we still owe nearly £3trillion
40% of that is owed to ourselves. No wonder people get confused by govt finances.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
That’s fine and all but I thought the answer to our problems was growth? The reason why Britain is all but ungovernable is because everyone wants contradictory things.
We need growth per capita.
Migration is a side-story to that. Skilled migration can help, but we need to start measuring per capita growth as the headline and not absolute figures.
Yeah we do but absolute growth is the only thing that matters when it comes to paying off debt in a timely manner.
We are never paying off our debt so that is moot. A balanced budget to stop increasing our debt would be a big step in the right direction though.
Growth per capita is the only thing that matters when it comes to living standards, which is what should matter.
I appear to have made friends with a mouse. He and I have been at odds for a couple of weeks as he insists on passing my sight line whilst I am sitting in the garden at night.he is gradually understanding that I won’t kill him brutally and is getting more bold. He is very sweet, reminds me of one of my old dogs, obviously smaller, but good luck to him, he goes about his business and isn’t a pest. So far. I have named him potato after one of my niece’s favourite cartoon characters.
I’m sure there is something about politics and life there somewhere. Or not.
Ten percent of me is wondering if it isn't a smallish rat...
It's all a bit Daily Express from the Independent.
Their latest data for their Schlock ! Horror ! headline for their DEAL WITH IT NOW !!! crisis is from 2024, and their analysed samples for the British Population are three samples taken from the toilets at the Cheltenham Festival.
Can anyone explain how on May 31st 2026, 2024 was "last year"?
Their graph shows that the % of the population taking cocaine in 2024 was the lowest in their entire history going back to 2015 (no data for pandemic).
They have a strong point about high concentration cocaine, and a possible link to a significant increase in resultant deaths, but can tell us nothing about 2025 and 2026.
I do not think "two out of three" means there were only three samples, although I guess it could do.
From the article, they did 3 samples with the most detailed analysis:
At Cheltenham on Gold Cup day in March, The Independent used test wipes on surfaces in toilets to find traces of cocaine, before collecting a dozen samples which were sent for testing at the Kingston Analytical Services Toxicology (KAST) at Kingston University.
Initial tests detected cocaine in almost every sample. Three were then sent for nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) testing, which revealed that two, including one taken from a baby changing facility at the Best Mate Enclosure, had 85 per cent purity.
Dr Arijac Durrant, a postdoctoral researcher at the university who did the testing, told The Independent: “Here are two samples of high-quality cocaine which is above what we usually see at street level. I’m not a medical expert, but I would suggest a heightened risk of an overdose for someone taking this drug who is used to taking a lower purity substance.
I think the Indy has 3 samples, and everything else is published data from at the latest 2024.
The convincing thing imo is the constant increase in deaths from 2015 to 2024 (from just under 400 to just over 1200).
Just to point out that we are sending the large scale importers of this stuff to 20 year terms in prison, when it is the everyday use of a chunk of the mainstream establishment of the sorts of people who attend big meetings race courses.
This is the modern version of prostitution in the old days: blame the supplier, render invisible the smart set user.
The "war on drugs" has failed comprehensively and a new approach is needed. The reality is that recreational drug use is absolutely normalized across most parts of modern British society. The laws presume it can be contained but that simply isn't the case, and as a result we are pissing money up the wall in pursuit of an impossible objective. The policy also leads to hundreds of avoidable deaths each year.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
"Relatively" doing a heck of a lot of work there.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
Um when were house prices 2-3x income in the 1990s. It was 3-4 times then (I know as I bought twice then) and needed a reasonable deposit.
Remember that house prices are set by how much the person you are competing against can borrow and that's now anything up to 4.5x joint earnings... or 9 times income..
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
"Relatively" doing a heck of a lot of work there.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
Um when were house prices 2-3x income in the 1990s. It was 3-4 times then (I know as I bought twice then) and needed a reasonable deposit.
Remember that house prices are set by how much the person you are competing against can borrow and that's now anything up to 4.5x joint earnings... or 9 times income..
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
That’s fine and all but I thought the answer to our problems was growth? The reason why Britain is all but ungovernable is because everyone wants contradictory things.
We need growth per capita.
Migration is a side-story to that. Skilled migration can help, but we need to start measuring per capita growth as the headline and not absolute figures.
Yeah we do but absolute growth is the only thing that matters when it comes to paying off debt in a timely manner.
We are never paying off our debt so that is moot. A balanced budget to stop increasing our debt would be a big step in the right direction though.
Growth per capita is the only thing that matters when it comes to living standards, which is what should matter.
Living standards can improve in other ways. Let's say you cut crime, cut NHS waiting lists and reduce pollution. People's lives would be better without growth per capita occurring.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
"Relatively" doing a heck of a lot of work there.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
4.5x feels reasonable. Save 1x borrow 3.5x.
How the hell are young people supposed to save an entire year's salary while simultaneously paying rent? That's ridiculous.
2x salary as it was in the early 90s means that to do a 10% deposit means you need to save 20% of your annual salary which is far more plausible. 3x should be the upper limit of what is affordable.
You'd get a mix - if you are in a couple it becomes saving 0.5, save 10% of salary each for 5 years. Some will have higher paying jobs, others will save less and buy a house below "average". Others will get help from family. I think the market would function reasonably well on 4.5x. Would there still be people left behind? Sure, we need to build more houses but 4.5 would be a step change from what we have now and take it from a major problem to a minor one.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
That’s fine and all but I thought the answer to our problems was growth? The reason why Britain is all but ungovernable is because everyone wants contradictory things.
We need growth per capita.
Migration is a side-story to that. Skilled migration can help, but we need to start measuring per capita growth as the headline and not absolute figures.
Yeah we do but absolute growth is the only thing that matters when it comes to paying off debt in a timely manner.
It’s all very well being a smaller richer country but we still owe nearly £3trillion
40% of that is owed to ourselves. No wonder people get confused by govt finances.
Money owed is money owed. The distinction is really without relevance. It can’t be forgiven without inflationary and other consequences. It just reeks of excuses as to why the crushing debt burden on our children is acceptable
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
"Relatively" doing a heck of a lot of work there.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
Um when were house prices 2-3x income in the 1990s. It was 3-4 times then (I know as I bought twice then) and needed a reasonable deposit.
Remember that house prices are set by how much the person you are competing against can borrow and that's now anything up to 4.5x joint earnings... or 9 times income..
And house prices are far more complicated than what people can borrow. Especially since borrowers are competing against cash buyers who make up 25-35% of all sales.
The Trump admin extracted a payoff from Bosnia's government in exchange for getting the Bosnian Serbs to okay a gas pipeline: Bosnia gave the contract to a US firm run by Trump '20 truther lawyer Jesse Binnall and Michael Flynn's brother. https://x.com/dfriedman33/status/2061208183570374885
In other news "The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a federal law that makes it illegal to offer, pay, or promise anything of value to foreign government officials, political parties, or candidates to secure business or an improper advantage" Maximum punishment is 5 years.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
Not the leadership though, being the ex-Tory greatest hits.
Its going to be an absolute car crash if they gain power. A cabinet of Nigel, the ex Tories and perhaps a handful of arrogant business types. A mix of MPs that will include economic left, Singapore-on-Thames, ethno-nationalist blocks plus a batch of narcissists. A manifesto that won't be deliverable.
Chief Whip is going to be a job to avoid.
Famous last words, but it can't be more of a car crash than the current lot, who seem hell bent on establishing just how much ruin there is in a country.
Frankly, improving on the previous Tory administration isn't a much high bar to pass either, that was pretty diabolical.
They all agree on pretty much zero immigration, so that should be sorted fairly quickly. It will be tax and spending decisions that have the potential to be a bit more fun.
Zero immigration! Unpack this one for me. Based on ONS data
* Domestic population is in decline with more deaths than births * 500K of domestic population leaving each year. * With zero immigration (forecast at 700K) then population shrinks very quicky * Domestic population is both getting older and sicker * Potential tax base from Domestic population is shrinking fast to provide benefits (including pensions) for the old and the sick.
The dead hand of demographics is a heavy influence in the background so how do you satisfy the average Reform/Restore voter?
The population shrinking is a feature, not a bug. It takes a lot of pressure off infrastructure, which in turn releases a loads of cash (and labour) that's currently involved in building more.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
That’s fine and all but I thought the answer to our problems was growth? The reason why Britain is all but ungovernable is because everyone wants contradictory things.
We need growth per capita.
Migration is a side-story to that. Skilled migration can help, but we need to start measuring per capita growth as the headline and not absolute figures.
Yeah we do but absolute growth is the only thing that matters when it comes to paying off debt in a timely manner.
We are never paying off our debt so that is moot. A balanced budget to stop increasing our debt would be a big step in the right direction though.
Growth per capita is the only thing that matters when it comes to living standards, which is what should matter.
Living standards can improve in other ways. Let's say you cut crime, cut NHS waiting lists and reduce pollution. People's lives would be better without growth per capita occurring.
Easier to cut crime, NHS waiting lists etc when you have per capita growth so can afford more per capita doctors or courts or prison places etc
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
"Relatively" doing a heck of a lot of work there.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
Um when were house prices 2-3x income in the 1990s. It was 3-4 times then (I know as I bought twice then) and needed a reasonable deposit.
Remember that house prices are set by how much the person you are competing against can borrow and that's now anything up to 4.5x joint earnings... or 9 times income..
And house prices are far more complicated than what people can borrow. Especially since borrowers are competing against cash buyers who make up 25-35% of all sales.
The “North East” is not really a helpful data point when you’re including properties in dilapidated pit villages alongside desirable real estate in Newcastle and its hinterland
It has been pointed out here before that the average Reform supporter is far-right socially but far-left economically.
The plates are shifting.
If you are far left economically then voting for Tice, Yosef and co is a bloody stretch.
They want Dubai on Thames with flat rate, very low tax and fuck all else.
Pretty clear reason as to why a Reform's coalition will quickly fall apart once in power. Can't please both WWC who want lefty economic policies and ex-Tories living in the Shires who want spending cuts and lower taxes.
Mass deportation is arguably a lefty economic policy that directly benefits them.
No, it is not.
Lump of labour is a fallacy.
That applies just as much to you as it does anyone claiming we need immigration.
The lump of labour fallacy is irrelevant. Changes in supply still affect prices in the short term even if there isn't a fixed level of demand.
I'm not on board the mass deportation train. I'd like to see the population decreasing, but to do that, I think it would be sufficient to just make it virtually impossible to come to the UK as a foreign national, and let natural wastage do the rest.
However if we did do mass deportations, it's not just the labour market that's impacted. For example, if we were to deport a couple of million people that might actually be enough to put a meaningful dent into house prices and rents. That's much more in the interest of tenants and people near the bottom of the housing ladder than the well healed property owning classes.
We already have a meaningful dent in house prices, especially in London - the median price is down 20% in real terms since the 2021 peak, which itself had hardly shifted from the 2017 peak.
One current interesting phenomenon is that very few have noticed.
Because that is not meaningful.
A peak to not quite so peak fall of 20% in real terms is pretty meaningless in fact.
It would take an approximately 70% to 80% fall from here in real terms to get a meaningful reduction back to rational price to income ratios that existed in the 90s.
A 70-80% fall happening very quickly would also generate problems. A 20% fall is in the right direction and a quarter of the way there, while not being too sudden a change, so I don’t see why you’re being so sniffy about it.
You’d ideally want to see somewhere around 4-5% fall per year in money terms, such that someone on a 25y repayment mortgage is not going to encounter negative equity.
There’s still a lot of pent-up demand outside London though, a lot of housebuilding and/or population reduction required before prices fall significantly.
4-5% falls in cash terms would cause a lot of negative equity.
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Not only that. With the high level of deflation who’d be buying ? The market would slow down further.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
The problems all stem from treating a house as primarily an investment product, rather than simply somewhere to live.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
I don’t disagree.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
Property prices in the North East didn't change in price between 2004 and 2020. Even now they are relatively sane
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
"Relatively" doing a heck of a lot of work there.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
Um when were house prices 2-3x income in the 1990s. It was 3-4 times then (I know as I bought twice then) and needed a reasonable deposit.
Remember that house prices are set by how much the person you are competing against can borrow and that's now anything up to 4.5x joint earnings... or 9 times income..
And house prices are far more complicated than what people can borrow. Especially since borrowers are competing against cash buyers who make up 25-35% of all sales.
The “North East” is not really a helpful data point when you’re including properties in dilapidated pit villages alongside desirable real estate in Newcastle and its hinterland
True, but we were talking about the North East and that is the data.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
Golly, I'd read on here that Iraq was largely sorted out, albeit at the cost 100ks of lives.
You know which previous leader of Iraq wouldn't have stood for this sort of stuff?
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
LOL
You were praising it as a success story the other day.
We got rid of one corrupt brutal dictatorship for another.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
No, we screwed up the region for a couple of decades - and precipitated Europe's mass refugee crisis. It was a disastrous foreign policy intervention which almost certainly was not work the trillion or so cost.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
Golly, I'd read on here that Iraq was largely sorted out, albeit at the cost 100ks of lives.
You know which previous leader of Iraq wouldn't have stood for this sort of stuff?
Indeed, our foremost military strategist and North East property affordability expert was telling us what a great success western intervention was this weekend just gone.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
LOL
You were praising it as a success story the other day.
We got rid of one corrupt brutal dictatorship for another.
I do wonder if societies tend to progress naturally from anarchy to dictatorship to democracy. Iraq was on the dictatorship stage and we, perhaps naively, hoped to push them forwards to the democracy stage, but instead pushed them back to the anarchy stage.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
Golly, I'd read on here that Iraq was largely sorted out, albeit at the cost 100ks of lives.
You know which previous leader of Iraq wouldn't have stood for this sort of stuff?
Pol Pot probably would have dropped a bridge on them. Mao to. Pinochet actually had an issue with Law Of Lek types in very remote areas - which he fixed with a very Pinochet style.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
Golly, I'd read on here that Iraq was largely sorted out, albeit at the cost 100ks of lives.
You know which previous leader of Iraq wouldn't have stood for this sort of stuff?
The one who ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people and whose son turned up at weddings to rape the bride?
Have we noted this from Peter Kellner - a sobering summary of the capacity of party members to elect the dimmest and most off putting candidate available as leader.
I would quibble slightly with him. Wouldn't Duncan Smith have outpolled Ken Clarke among Tory MPs? The reason Clarke topped the vote was because of tactical voting to oust Portillo.
I'd rather the choice be left to MPs but the whole thing feels like a commentary on the declining performance of British democracy. In a populist age are people going to want to ensign the choice of leader to their betters?
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
LOL
You were praising it as a success story the other day.
We got rid of one corrupt brutal dictatorship for another.
Iraq is not now a dictatorship, it elects its own government, we are not responsible for who Iraqis choose to elect though
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
LOL
You were praising it as a success story the other day.
We got rid of one corrupt brutal dictatorship for another.
Better to get rid of one corrupt brutal dictatorship for another than to stick with the same brutal dictatorship.
It is only through chaos and change that we get evolution and progress.
Change and anarchy are better than stability of evil.
There’s not going to be an agreement IMV and we just need to get used to it and the short term pain while we look at mitigation. Demand destruction. New sources. Etc etc.
Trump and Bibi have fucked the global economy with an ill thought out venture where all of their assumptions were wrong and the risk now is Iran is really pushed by it to get a Nuke.
They’ve also fucked over their gulf allies by not being able to protect them.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
LOL
You were praising it as a success story the other day.
We got rid of one corrupt brutal dictatorship for another.
Iraq is not now a dictatorship, it elects its own government, we are not responsible for who Iraqis choose to elect though
The problem seems to be that, although nominally a democracy, the Iraqi state is very weak and corruption is everywhere, meaning that you actually have something that is close to anarchy.
There’s not going to be an agreement IMV and we just need to get used to it and the short term pain while we look at mitigation. Demand destruction. New sources. Etc etc.
Trump and Bibi have fucked the global economy with an ill thought out venture where all of their assumptions were wrong and the risk now is Iran is really pushed by it to get a Nuke.
They’ve also fucked over their gulf allies by not being able to protect them.
I think you’ve underestimated the damage they’ve done.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
Have we noted this from Peter Kellner - a sobering summary of the capacity of party members to elect the dimmest and most off putting candidate available as leader.
It begs the question of the reason to elect party leaders. Implicitly Peter assumes the point is to pick a winner, but the purpose of parties is inter alia to pick a leader who represents members while being potentially electable. I'd argue that Corbyn fitted that well the first time round, but should have stood down after losing. There is no point in simply electing whoever MPs like, which is influenced by all kinds of personal ambitions and calculations as well as winning. It relegates membership to a supporters' club, and that will result in ever-diminishing numbers.
What if party members are wildly out of step with the public? Then the party should lose, and perhaps win the next time.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
LOL
You were praising it as a success story the other day.
We got rid of one corrupt brutal dictatorship for another.
Iraq is not now a dictatorship, it elects its own government, we are not responsible for who Iraqis choose to elect though
The problem seems to be that, although nominally a democracy, the Iraqi state is very weak and corruption is everywhere, meaning that you actually have something that is close to anarchy.
An improvement on what it was under Saddam, but it is up to them what they do with that, and unfortunately many have ill-intentions.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
LOL
You were praising it as a success story the other day.
We got rid of one corrupt brutal dictatorship for another.
Iraq is not now a dictatorship, it elects its own government, we are not responsible for who Iraqis choose to elect though
Labour lost touch with working people long ago. Took them for granted.
It is as much that the WWC have moved away from Labour rather than the other way around.
How on earth can a left of centre party appeal to people who want Farage as PM without shredding most of what it believes in?
There are still 16-18% who support the Greens and a similar number who are standard Labour. It's just about 25% who make you want to leave the country and have nothing more to do with it. Listening to the vox-pops in Makerfield is as about as depressing as it gets.
There’s not going to be an agreement IMV and we just need to get used to it and the short term pain while we look at mitigation. Demand destruction. New sources. Etc etc.
Trump and Bibi have fucked the global economy with an ill thought out venture where all of their assumptions were wrong and the risk now is Iran is really pushed by it to get a Nuke.
They’ve also fucked over their gulf allies by not being able to protect them.
It's been a disaster for the Iranian democracy movement too. Far from precipitating regime change, the US/Israeli military action appears to have cemented in position an even more hard-line version of the theocracy.
Labour lost touch with working people long ago. Took them for granted.
It is as much that the WWC have moved away from Labour rather than the other way around.
How on earth can a left of centre party appeal to people who want Farage as PM without shredding most of what it believes in?
If Labour fails to address the issues that matter to WWC voters, of course they will move away from the party.
Moreso when the party gives the impression of not wanting votes "from the likes of you".
But at least the north London supper party crowd can feel superior, which is the most important thing.
Dan Carden made the point, unanswered by Labour so far, as to whether or not the party wants to represent these communities going forward.
I’d suspect a major chunk of it would rather get into bed with the Lib Dem’s and greens and forget the working class who they regard as sinners who need to see the error of their ways as opposed to seeing that labour is the problem.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
Ungrateful fuckers.
Indeed, but what can you do?
What indeed ?
We don’t have the manpower, resources or will.
We have to let them get there on their own terms,
Shouldn't we stick to the script and bomb them once a generation, just to help out a little?
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
Ungrateful fuckers.
Indeed, but what can you do?
What indeed ?
We don’t have the manpower, resources or will.
We have to let them get there on their own terms,
Which is what we are now doing, and they have a chance to do now that Saddam is gone.
That is an improvement on the status quo 23+ years ago when there was no anarchy and they lived under the stable dictatorship of Saddam.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
Ungrateful fuckers.
Indeed, but what can you do?
A question we should have thought about a bit harder, a couple of decades back.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
A challenging article for the "at least we freed Iraq from Saddam" crowd.
We did what we could.
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
Ungrateful fuckers.
Indeed, but what can you do?
A question we should have thought about a bit harder, a couple of decades back.
Saddam is gone, mission accomplished.
If only we got rid of the Mullahs and others too.
What they do with that freedom is up to them. And if a new dictatorship comes that threatens us we can and should be able to act to remove it again.
Eventually hopefully after enough anarchy they might evolve into something resembling a democracy.
We can't force them there though, we can only create the circumstances for them to act by removing whatever dictatorship is there, the rest is on them.
British foreign policy is now as deigned and needed - we will allow the US to use our/their bases to do what they must/want but as for being the junior partner in dubious Middle Eastern adventures, that's Israel's gig now. I await future Democrat primaries with great interest.
Labour lost touch with working people long ago. Took them for granted.
It is as much that the WWC have moved away from Labour rather than the other way around.
How on earth can a left of centre party appeal to people who want Farage as PM without shredding most of what it believes in?
If Labour fails to address the issues that matter to WWC voters, of course they will move away from the party.
Moreso when the party gives the impression of not wanting votes "from the likes of you".
But at least the north London supper party crowd can feel superior, which is the most important thing.
Dan Carden made the point, unanswered by Labour so far, as to whether or not the party wants to represent these communities going forward.
I’d suspect a major chunk of it would rather get into bed with the Lib Dem’s and greens and forget the working class who they regard as sinners who need to see the error of their ways as opposed to seeing that labour is the problem.
We're about to get a further reminder of how far Labout dislikes them - as the England flags go up for the World Cup...
Name recognition is probably doing a lot of work there...
But Pete does have name recognition..
Doesn't look like a particularly convincing position for anyone. I think Rubio is probably the strongest general election challenger on the other side.
Comments
Their latest data for their Schlock ! Horror ! headline for their DEAL WITH IT NOW !!! crisis is from 2024, and their analysed samples for the British Population are three samples taken from the toilets at the Cheltenham Festival.
Can anyone explain how on May 31st 2026, 2024 was "last year"?
Their graph shows that the % of the population taking cocaine in 2024 was the lowest in their entire history going back to 2015 (no data for pandemic).
They have a strong point about high concentration cocaine, and a possible link to a significant increase in resultant deaths, but can tell us nothing about 2025 and 2026.
House building is an obvious example - if the population is falling, we can stop building new houses, and the prices of existing houses will fall. This releases a great load of labour to do other things (maybe some of it will be caring for the elderly) and will make most working people better off because far less of their income is going on housing.
Same with other infrastructure. Why are we spending over £100 billion on HS2? Because the existing railway is at capacity. As the population drops, demand will drop, and the existing capacity will become sufficient again.
Repeat for energy infrastructure - the smaller the population, the lower the peak demand, the less capacity we have to pay for to be able to cover demand during a week of cold still weather in winter.
It's worth noting that the 500k PA of domestic population people leaving has a big component who were previously immigrants to the UK, and are now going home again. Once there is no new immigration, that number will trend down pretty fast, I suspect in five years it will be more like 100k than 500k.
So probably the population will drop 3-4 million quite quickly, and then the rate of shrinkage will slow quite considerably. Once we've lost 10-15 million, and the population is back down to around the 55 million our current infrastructure can sensibly support, there is nothing stopping a future government cracking the immigration tap open again to hold the population steady.
But yes it’s a simple solution to a complex problem, and there are definitely second-order and third-order effects which don’t get properly thought through by policymakers in advance.
There’s a whole fraud industry in the US targeting SNAP benefits, which even goes as far as fake supermarkets!
https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/12/17/food-stamp-fraud-charges-snap-benefits-bodegas-mattapan
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/store-owner-admits-multi-million-dollar-snap-fraud-scheme
The ONS figures are available publically so someone must have taken those figures, applied modelling to come out with your suggested outcome. Care to share?
1-2% would be the most we could sensibly take.
High LTV mortgages are at their highest level since the GFC, at (best number I an find) about 8% of the market in 2025 Q4.
Those wanting to get on the ladder would simply hold off waiting for further falls.
Also the consequential knock on effect to trades and tradesmen would see a decline in work as new movers often do work to their new homes. Our new neighbour is.
As always, be careful what people wish for.
People would still buy houses even if they don’t go up in value. Banks would be more careful about loan to value calculations though, you’d probably need at least 10% deposit.
Incredible #ASCO26 moment.
Dr. Brian Wolpin, presenter of the daraxonrasib study, received a standing ovation DURING his talk after he stated the survival benefit for PDAC patients. It was sustained. Cheering. I have never see anything like it in the middle of a talk.
https://x.com/adamfeuerstein/status/2061184024668672253
Its not just the first useful treatment for pancreatic cancer, but also the first successful result for a new category of drugs ("molecular glues"), which greatly extends the type of biological targets that drugs can be designed for.
We were out in the Toon with friends who have two rental flats in S Shields. Little equity. Finding them more and more of a problem to deal with including the tenants.
‘It was our retirement plan’ was mentioned more than once. One of them even cashed in an NHS pension to fund it.
Property was treated as a one way bet when it came to investing. Always goes up. Some people are learning hard lessons.
The fact Hasan and Cenk say they were banned from entry into the UK “at the behest of Israel” is hilarious considering this 👇🏽 is who banned from entering the UK
https://x.com/koshercockney/status/2061234596411318398?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Anyone who bought property post 2004 expecting big increases in equity was a grade A fool.
At Cheltenham on Gold Cup day in March, The Independent used test wipes on surfaces in toilets to find traces of cocaine, before collecting a dozen samples which were sent for testing at the Kingston Analytical Services Toxicology (KAST) at Kingston University.
Initial tests detected cocaine in almost every sample. Three were then sent for nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) testing, which revealed that two, including one taken from a baby changing facility at the Best Mate Enclosure, had 85 per cent purity.
Dr Arijac Durrant, a postdoctoral researcher at the university who did the testing, told The Independent: “Here are two samples of high-quality cocaine which is above what we usually see at street level. I’m not a medical expert, but I would suggest a heightened risk of an overdose for someone taking this drug who is used to taking a lower purity substance.
I think the Indy has 3 samples, and everything else is published data from at the latest 2024.
The convincing thing imo is the constant increase in deaths from 2015 to 2024 (from just under 400 to just over 1200).
They’re a nice couple but when it comes to money and investing they are fools.
In nominal terms my house has gone up a fair bit since 2004 but in real terms it is pretty static. That’s fine. It doesn’t matter to me. It’s paid off, nice house nice area. We may stay or move.
The real gain I had was in the three years from 2001 to 2004 when I first moved in. Remortgaged after two year fix ended and the valuer for the mortgage lender reckoned it had gone up in value by about 70% in two years. Utterly nuts.
If it's only 1 in 40-50 then the MoE must be quite high. So usage looks pretty constant.
The Trump admin extracted a payoff from Bosnia's government in exchange for getting the Bosnian Serbs to okay a gas pipeline: Bosnia gave the contract to a US firm run by Trump '20 truther lawyer Jesse Binnall and Michael Flynn's brother.
https://x.com/dfriedman33/status/2061208183570374885
‘That’s a nice pipeline you’ve got there. Lovely pipeline. Be a shame if something happened to it’
May be getting rid of some old games and after trying to work out the correct way found the gex.co.uk website. Kind of interesting to compare prices. Likely not going to sell this (I do occasionally dust off the PS2 and play them) but together Shadow Hearts and Shadow Hearts Covenant would go for over £50 despite being rather old.
Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles (Mega Drive) have a combined price over £47.
Anyway, in the unlikely event that anyone here wants any Mega Drive games do give me a bell as I'll probably otherwise be shifting them by selling online.
The Battle of Moonraker base is never the same once you learn the truth:
The dolls inside each space suit were surplus Fonzarelli action figures from Happy Days.
The staff kept triggering the sound effect the doll made which they incorporated into the scene.
So next time you see one of the astronauts hit by a laser and spinning off into space, you can now hear The Fonze giving the thumbs-up saying “Aaay!”…
https://x.com/TotherChris/status/2061124872764346479
(I have no idea if this is true.)
On the subject of restricted benefit cards my wife, who has been very ill recently, appears to be celiac and her diagnosis was flagged in 2020 but overlooked due to covid pressure
She has had an endyscope and we have moved to a gluten free diet and she is showing signs of recovery which we are very pleased about
The Wales NHS provides prescriptions for celiac patients to buy the more expensive gluten free food and one Welsh Board has introduced a credit card for this scheme
These are the details and it is expected to be rolled out across Wales
https://nwssp.nhs.wales/ourservices/primary-care-services/our-services/gluten-free-foods-subsidy-card-service/
The time period quoted of 2017 to 2026 is not "suddenly" it is a full decade. From 2021 to 2026, also quoted, is not "suddenly" either, it is half a decade. During that time prices have gone from obscenely high to obscenely high but not quite as high, that is still a huge problem that needs fixing as rapidly as possible to address the huge problems of unaffordability that exist today.
If someone is driving at 100mph down a residential road then would you consider them slowing down to 80mph down the same residential road to be the problem solved? Should we be grateful for that and think "that's good"?
Migration is a side-story to that. Skilled migration can help, but we need to start measuring per capita growth as the headline and not absolute figures.
The number of votes that will switch is ~0.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c794g80lw74o
For me a house is a home not an investment but I understand entirely why others have been forced to look at it in a different way. .
This is the modern version of prostitution in the old days: blame the supplier, render invisible the smart set user.
Sane is 2-3x salary as it was in the 1990s.
Even in the North East it is typically ~5-6x salary.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne averages 5.7x salary
So a 50% real terms fall needed, even in the North East.
https://kellnerp.substack.com/p/hand-the-power-to-choose-party-leaders?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2975369&post_id=200022234&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
2x salary as it was in the early 90s means that to do a 10% deposit means you need to save 20% of your annual salary which is far more plausible. 3x should be the upper limit of what is affordable.
Growth per capita is the only thing that matters when it comes to living standards, which is what should matter.
Remember that house prices are set by how much the person you are competing against can borrow and that's now anything up to 4.5x joint earnings... or 9 times income..
Remember that house prices are set by how much the person you are competing against can borrow and that's now anything up to 4.5x joint earnings... or 9 times income..
https://x.com/OldGassy1984/status/2061117900761518256
I've been racking my brain to come up with a way that these deaths could be avoided, but I am at a loss.
And house prices are far more complicated than what people can borrow. Especially since borrowers are competing against cash buyers who make up 25-35% of all sales.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jun/01/kawthar-al-husayjawi-killed-refusing-forced-marriage-marry-family-celebrated-iraq
..What terrifies me most is how easy murder has become for men in Iraq. They no longer fear the law or the state, because they see corruption everywhere. Everyone concealed what happened. Apparently a lawyer will take on the case, the body will be located and her brother will turn himself in as the sole perpetrator so that the case will be closed as an “honour” killing.
Although Iraqi law does not directly mention the phrase “honour” killing, there are mitigating excuses in law that address the crime of killing motivated by honour. Someone killing his wife or close female relative after finding in an act of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. In many cases, the crime is not viewed as a deliberate, fully constituted murder, but rather as a family incident that got out of control.
Iraq’s new laws permitting children as young as nine years old to marry is terrifying to me, because a child pulled out of school and pushed into early marriage becomes more vulnerable and less able to protect herself or object to the violence she is subjected to. Kawthar had not yet reached an age that allowed her to understand life, yet everyone was treating her as a woman who must be subdued, monitored and punished.
How on earth can a left of centre party appeal to people who want Farage as PM without shredding most of what it believes in?
It is tragic to see what they have done with that freedom.
You know which previous leader of Iraq wouldn't have stood for this sort of stuff?
You were praising it as a success story the other day.
We got rid of one corrupt brutal dictatorship for another.
It was a disastrous foreign policy intervention which almost certainly was not work the trillion or so cost.
Exxon is saying that oil prices will rise to $150 to $160 in coming weeks
https://x.com/JoshYoung/status/2061220589151367447
I'd rather the choice be left to MPs but the whole thing feels like a commentary on the declining performance of British democracy. In a populist age are people going to want to ensign the choice of leader to their betters?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iraqi_parliamentary_election
Moreso when the party gives the impression of not wanting votes "from the likes of you".
But at least the north London supper party crowd can feel superior, which is the most important thing.
It is only through chaos and change that we get evolution and progress.
Change and anarchy are better than stability of evil.
Trump and Bibi have fucked the global economy with an ill thought out venture where all of their assumptions were wrong and the risk now is Iran is really pushed by it to get a Nuke.
They’ve also fucked over their gulf allies by not being able to protect them.
If you want to change the country, you need to make sure that you bring lots of people with you.
On abortion and capital punishment, we had long running debates, arguments, votes and discussions.
If the people start feeling that politics is something that is done to them, rather than something they participate in.
Which is why trying to use law to enact change, rather than law to be a part of, or follow the change in public mood, is bad.
What if party members are wildly out of step with the public? Then the party should lose, and perhaps win the next time.
Unless you believe elections in Iraq are free and fair, of course.
I’d suspect a major chunk of it would rather get into bed with the Lib Dem’s and greens and forget the working class who they regard as sinners who need to see the error of their ways as opposed to seeing that labour is the problem.
We don’t have the manpower, resources or will.
We have to let them get there on their own terms,
That is an improvement on the status quo 23+ years ago when there was no anarchy and they lived under the stable dictatorship of Saddam.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5898010-pete-buttigieg-democratic-presidential-primary-poll/
If only we got rid of the Mullahs and others too.
What they do with that freedom is up to them. And if a new dictatorship comes that threatens us we can and should be able to act to remove it again.
Eventually hopefully after enough anarchy they might evolve into something resembling a democracy.
We can't force them there though, we can only create the circumstances for them to act by removing whatever dictatorship is there, the rest is on them.
He does seem like a genuinely nice chap. Is that enough in American politics? Jury is out.
But Pete does have name recognition..
I await future Democrat primaries with great interest.