What's noteworthy of course is that within a decade we'll have seen two different former Mayors become PM. Both following the route of being [arguably not-especially respected] MPs who left Parliament to become Mayor, became long-term Party favourite for leadership polls, then returned to the Commons and became Prime Minister.
Would not surprise if going forward many more ambitious MPs suddenly become interested in opportunities to become Mayor.
As an MP you have zero responsibility for implementing anything, and as a Minister you have limited scope for implementing anything in a narrow area. As Mayor you have unquestioned responsibility for most things affecting the city. It's probably closer to being PM than a backbench MP, and roughly equal to a mid-ranking Minister.
Council Leaders have way more power than most MPs, but of course Whitehall and Westminster are now trying to reduce their power (not that it is that much) further by putting mayors on top of them, so they can dictate to 25 people in a room instead of hundreds.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
I'll believe that when I see an English Parliament.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
I want the Heptarchy back. Devolve towards that please, ptb.
I'd go with the old ITV regions myself (they have centres, they largely follow natural geography because radio waves do that), but an imperfect devolution map is better than no map at all.
(What I'd actually do is what the Spanish did once the Spanish government accepted that General Franco was dead. Decide what powers could be devolved and put them in a box. Let's say everything that the Scottish government does now as a first draft. Then tell counites/collections of counties that they can take any of the powers out of that box that they can make a case for and win a referendum on. If a region doesn't want any of those powers, that's fine, but that power for that region stays at Westminster.
Can the Andyman really give up the powers that have fallen into his lap? I hope so, but I admit that I fear not.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
The UK is a very strange federal state, in that the largest and most prosperous part of the country, with 85% of the population, is directly run by the central government, as a "territory" in US terms.
However Governments seem to want to impose ever more ingenious and ad-hoc arrangements on us, and the only option ever considered is to split England into penny packets. Having said that, it's not clear we need an additional layer of government as a English parliament.
My option would be radical devolution to whatever parts of the country feel like they are a suitable candidate (eg Cornwall if it wants to be) with a light touch England government exercising audit functions and a few strategic ones such as highways. If the English parliament was part time, it could occupy Westminster when the British parliament isn't sitting. Or maybe reoccupy somewhere it has sat before, such as Christ Church Oxfird
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
I want the Heptarchy back. Devolve towards that please, ptb.
I'd go with the old ITV regions myself (they have centres, they largely follow natural geography because radio waves do that), but an imperfect devolution map is better than no map at all.
(What I'd actually do is what the Spanish did once the Spanish government accepted that General Franco was dead. Decide what powers could be devolved and put them in a box. Let's say everything that the Scottish government does now as a first draft. Then tell counites/collections of counties that they can take any of the powers out of that box that they can make a case for and win a referendum on. If a region doesn't want any of those powers, that's fine, but that power for that region stays at Westminster.
Can the Andyman really give up the powers that have fallen into his lap? I hope so, but I admit that I fear not.
Why should any part of England be governed by Westminster?
Also I am not sure you could easily devolve some Scottish powers regionally, eg railways and highways. So there needs to be some overarching English government.
Was at the Clermont last week - was OK nothing great.
Next weekend I'm staying at the Great Northern (which is the one on Kings Cross) so will report back - but we are very fairly often for drinks so the bar is very acceptable.
London hotel prices have gone up so much recently.
The cost of living crisis is real.
Early on this week I nearly fainted when I found out 30g of Beluga caviar is now £400 in Claridge's (plus service charge).
I paid £250 in 2023.
Claridge’s wanted £900 for a basic room, 35sqm. £1,250 for a balcony room.
In my mind the fanciest London hotels were in the £500 range, it’s obviously been a long time since I checked them out! Thinking back, it’s probably about 20 years!
It's causing me grief.
Back in 2023 I took my then girlfriend for a 4 night stay at Claridge's.
Current girlfriend wants the same experience but the prices are shocking, I'd be paying nearly double 3 years later.
As one of my colleagues put it, the cost must be really bad if even I baulking at the costs.
Last time I stayed in London with the missus, we were counting the pennies and stayed at a crappy Ibis next to CIty Airport and a B&B on Edgeware Rd.
This time I thought I’d push the boat out and surprise her with a stay in a fancy place, as a thank-you to her for spending the previous week with my family, but after spending the morning researching the signature hotels they’re all miles over budget.
I’ve realised that Dubai hotels are great value, there’s almost nothing above £600-700 for a king room, and the Burj-al-Arab is £1,000 for a suite (but closed for refurb at the moment).
To be honest, if you really want to treat her, perhaps go for a luxury hotel outside of London.
Pound for pound those places are much better.
One of the reasons I really don't like The Ritz is that the gentlemen are required to wear suits and ties in the public areas at all time, no exceptions.
Claridge's don't have such a ludicrous dress policy.
Which is why it is also useful to check such policies.
What we are actually doing is a bit of a trip. The family thing is near Birmingham, so we’re going to spend the week wandering towards London (Leamington Spa, Stratford, Oxford, Slough etc), then finish off with a couple of days in Town before heading to Gatwick. She wants to go to the theatre and do some sightseeing.
Thanks everyone for the hotel suggestions, a good day for the PB brain trust. 👍
I select on what I’m there for. If it’s work then I need to be in Mayfair and if social I will be in Chelsea for the duration and can’t be bothered to schlepp around - prefer to be able to go out in the evenings and stroll back. So work out where you are likely to spend most of your time and choose accordingly.
Was at the Clermont last week - was OK nothing great.
Next weekend I'm staying at the Great Northern (which is the one on Kings Cross) so will report back - but we are very fairly often for drinks so the bar is very acceptable.
London hotel prices have gone up so much recently.
The cost of living crisis is real.
Early on this week I nearly fainted when I found out 30g of Beluga caviar is now £400 in Claridge's (plus service charge).
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
I'll believe that when I see an English Parliament.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
I want the Heptarchy back. Devolve towards that please, ptb.
I'd go with the old ITV regions myself (they have centres, they largely follow natural geography because radio waves do that), but an imperfect devolution map is better than no map at all.
(What I'd actually do is what the Spanish did once the Spanish government accepted that General Franco was dead. Decide what powers could be devolved and put them in a box. Let's say everything that the Scottish government does now as a first draft. Then tell counites/collections of counties that they can take any of the powers out of that box that they can make a case for and win a referendum on. If a region doesn't want any of those powers, that's fine, but that power for that region stays at Westminster.
Can the Andyman really give up the powers that have fallen into his lap? I hope so, but I admit that I fear not.
There’s an argument made, by the Ciudadnos, that Spanish devolution has gone too far, with local leaders wasting money on boondoggles.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
The UK is a very strange federal state, in that the largest and most prosperous part of the country, with 85% of the population, is directly run by the central government, as a "territory" in US terms.
However Governments seem to want to impose ever more ingenious and ad-hoc arrangements on us, and the only option ever considered is to split England into penny packets. Having said that, it's not clear we need an additional layer of government as a English parliament.
My option would be radical devolution to whatever parts of the country feel like they are a suitable candidate (eg Cornwall if it wants to be) with a light touch England government exercising audit functions and a few strategic ones such as highways. If the English parliament was part time, it could occupy Westminster when the British parliament isn't sitting. Or maybe reoccupy somewhere it has sat before, such as Christ Church Oxfird
I would submit that some of the nonsense we saw during Covid would have been mitigated by having an English government. Having the same people determining the rules for England and also having to try to get some sort of co-ordination across the jurisdictions led to a whole lot of damaging grandstanding.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
I'll believe that when I see an English Parliament.
That would just be continuity centralisation.
No, it could be a radically decentralised government with, say, Hampshire carrying out most of the functions of Scotland. The England government would exercise an audit function plus a couple of strategic ones, eg national rail and roads, and the legislators would meet a couple of weeks a year
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
The UK is a very strange federal state, in that the largest and most prosperous part of the country, with 85% of the population, is directly run by the central government, as a "territory" in US terms.
However Governments seem to want to impose ever more ingenious and ad-hoc arrangements on us, and the only option ever considered is to split England into penny packets. Having said that, it's not clear we need an additional layer of government as a English parliament.
My option would be radical devolution to whatever parts of the country feel like they are a suitable candidate (eg Cornwall if it wants to be) with a light touch England government exercising audit functions and a few strategic ones such as highways. If the English parliament was part time, it could occupy Westminster when the British parliament isn't sitting. Or maybe reoccupy somewhere it has sat before, such as Christ Church Oxfird
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
That’s not high production value. That’s generative AI.
And bad gen AI at that.
Its along the lines of what weird "channel" (which I am very suspious of) that pumps pro-Reform "funnies", Crewkerne Gazette,
It could also do with editing down to about half the length.
Given the guys long experience of working in the tv, good media comms doesn't surprise. I would have expected even tighter editting etc. I would be shocked if he doesn't have mates at the BBC who edit programmes / trailer etc, and absolutely nailed won't have trouble finding ones that hate Farage.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
I'll believe that when I see an English Parliament.
That would just be continuity centralisation.
No, it could be a radically decentralised government with, say, Hampshire carrying out most of the functions of Scotland. The England government would exercise an audit function plus a couple of strategic ones, eg national rail and roads, and the legislators would meet a couple of weeks a year
It would be a very odd body. It is both unnecessary to a decentralised England, and by its existence might, I suspect, encourage the arguments for Scottish independence.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
Also UC housing element is paid to lower pay families to help with rent but not with mortgages.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Isn't the key thing when you bought the property you are renting out?
Yes, and, no.
It will appear that way to most people, but it's the current price that matters, because your alternative to renting out the house is to sell it and invest the proceeds elsewhere. And if you sell it that will be at the current market price.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
I'll believe that when I see an English Parliament.
That would just be continuity centralisation.
No, it could be a radically decentralised government with, say, Hampshire carrying out most of the functions of Scotland. The England government would exercise an audit function plus a couple of strategic ones, eg national rail and roads, and the legislators would meet a couple of weeks a year
Many years ago I was Secretary pf a Local Pharmaceutical Committee, which meant that as far the NHS was concerned I represented all pharmacy contractors in an area with just over a million people. I used to go to National Conferences and it always amused me that my friend, my equivalent from Northern Ireland, was treated with much more respect that I was, since he was a representative of a Nation and I was resenting a County, although the populations of both were about the same.
About bloody time after he initially tried to double down in defense of his abhorrent comments in his pathetic attempt to try to define Ann Widdecombe! What ever your views of Ann Widdecombe as a longtime Conservative MP and Minister and then a media celebrity during her initial retirement from politics before she then reentered the political fray and joined the Brexit party and becoming an MEP and then onto Nigel Farage's latest political vehicle Reform, to reduce her life and career to the fact she never married in those terms was beyond the pale!!
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
When you look through the lists of Labour MPs it becomes less weird. As does Burnham's temptation to fill his cabinet up with Blairite retreads from the House of Lords. They are desperately short of talent (and I am not making a party political point here, the opposition is no better).
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
Also UC housing element is paid to lower pay families to help with rent but not with mortgages.
Which is silly, because if it was paid to clear a mortgage then you could see a plausible end point to having to pay it. Pay rent and you’re paying it for life. Also, you trap people in poverty.
Very nice for landlords, but dumb for the country.
Was at the Clermont last week - was OK nothing great.
Next weekend I'm staying at the Great Northern (which is the one on Kings Cross) so will report back - but we are very fairly often for drinks so the bar is very acceptable.
London hotel prices have gone up so much recently.
The cost of living crisis is real.
Early on this week I nearly fainted when I found out 30g of Beluga caviar is now £400 in Claridge's (plus service charge).
I paid £250 in 2023.
Claridge’s wanted £900 for a basic room, 35sqm. £1,250 for a balcony room.
In my mind the fanciest London hotels were in the £500 range, it’s obviously been a long time since I checked them out! Thinking back, it’s probably about 20 years!
It's causing me grief.
Back in 2023 I took my then girlfriend for a 4 night stay at Claridge's.
Current girlfriend wants the same experience but the prices are shocking, I'd be paying nearly double 3 years later.
As one of my colleagues put it, the cost must be really bad if even I baulking at the costs.
Last time I stayed in London with the missus, we were counting the pennies and stayed at a crappy Ibis next to CIty Airport and a B&B on Edgeware Rd.
This time I thought I’d push the boat out and surprise her with a stay in a fancy place, as a thank-you to her for spending the previous week with my family, but after spending the morning researching the signature hotels they’re all miles over budget.
I’ve realised that Dubai hotels are great value, there’s almost nothing above £600-700 for a king room, and the Burj-al-Arab is £1,000 for a suite (but closed for refurb at the moment).
To be honest, if you really want to treat her, perhaps go for a luxury hotel outside of London.
Pound for pound those places are much better.
One of the reasons I really don't like The Ritz is that the gentlemen are required to wear suits and ties in the public areas at all time, no exceptions.
Claridge's don't have such a ludicrous dress policy.
Which is why it is also useful to check such policies.
Agree and would put in a vote for Edinburgh if the Sandpits are flying anyway.
Lots of very nice hotels. Actually my pick for this I've not been to - Gleneagles Townhouse.
Plenty more than that though - Prestonfield, The Balmoral being two good ones.
Was at the Clermont last week - was OK nothing great.
Next weekend I'm staying at the Great Northern (which is the one on Kings Cross) so will report back - but we are very fairly often for drinks so the bar is very acceptable.
London hotel prices have gone up so much recently.
The cost of living crisis is real.
Early on this week I nearly fainted when I found out 30g of Beluga caviar is now £400 in Claridge's (plus service charge).
I paid £250 in 2023.
Claridge’s wanted £900 for a basic room, 35sqm. £1,250 for a balcony room.
In my mind the fanciest London hotels were in the £500 range, it’s obviously been a long time since I checked them out! Thinking back, it’s probably about 20 years!
It's causing me grief.
Back in 2023 I took my then girlfriend for a 4 night stay at Claridge's.
Current girlfriend wants the same experience but the prices are shocking, I'd be paying nearly double 3 years later.
As one of my colleagues put it, the cost must be really bad if even I baulking at the costs.
Last time I stayed in London with the missus, we were counting the pennies and stayed at a crappy Ibis next to CIty Airport and a B&B on Edgeware Rd.
This time I thought I’d push the boat out and surprise her with a stay in a fancy place, as a thank-you to her for spending the previous week with my family, but after spending the morning researching the signature hotels they’re all miles over budget.
I’ve realised that Dubai hotels are great value, there’s almost nothing above £600-700 for a king room, and the Burj-al-Arab is £1,000 for a suite (but closed for refurb at the moment).
To be honest, if you really want to treat her, perhaps go for a luxury hotel outside of London.
Pound for pound those places are much better.
One of the reasons I really don't like The Ritz is that the gentlemen are required to wear suits and ties in the public areas at all time, no exceptions.
Claridge's don't have such a ludicrous dress policy.
Which is why it is also useful to check such policies.
Agree and would put in a vote for Edinburgh if the Sandpits are flying anyway.
Lots of very nice hotels. Actually my pick for this I've not been to - Gleneagles Townhouse.
Plenty more than that though - Prestonfield, The Balmoral being two good ones.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
Also UC housing element is paid to lower pay families to help with rent but not with mortgages.
Which is silly, because if it was paid to clear a mortgage then you could see a plausible end point to having to pay it. Pay rent and you’re paying it for life. Also, you trap people in poverty.
Very nice for landlords, but dumb for the country.
If someone falls behind on their mortgage and it is repossessed and sold, they may be left with enough capital that the state can avoid paying them many benefits for a while.
And of course we're back to British people hating other people, so being resolutely opposed to doing anything that might help them.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
Also UC housing element is paid to lower pay families to help with rent but not with mortgages.
Which is silly, because if it was paid to clear a mortgage then you could see a plausible end point to having to pay it. Pay rent and you’re paying it for life. Also, you trap people in poverty.
Very nice for landlords, but dumb for the country.
You’d have thought UC would cover the interest on a mortgage, if not the repayment aspect.
Remember when MPs were banned from claiming mortgage payments in London on expenses, what happened is that they all still bought apartments in Westminster and rented them to each other!
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
Also UC housing element is paid to lower pay families to help with rent but not with mortgages.
Which is silly, because if it was paid to clear a mortgage then you could see a plausible end point to having to pay it. Pay rent and you’re paying it for life. Also, you trap people in poverty.
Very nice for landlords, but dumb for the country.
If an actual Independent Space Warrior were to land in Britain, they would have to conclude that the whole setup is optimised to benefit existing owners of land and property. It may not be the theoretical intention, but it's the practial outcome.
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
The UK is a very strange federal state, in that the largest and most prosperous part of the country, with 85% of the population, is directly run by the central government, as a "territory" in US terms.
However Governments seem to want to impose ever more ingenious and ad-hoc arrangements on us, and the only option ever considered is to split England into penny packets. Having said that, it's not clear we need an additional layer of government as a English parliament.
My option would be radical devolution to whatever parts of the country feel like they are a suitable candidate (eg Cornwall if it wants to be) with a light touch England government exercising audit functions and a few strategic ones such as highways. If the English parliament was part time, it could occupy Westminster when the British parliament isn't sitting. Or maybe reoccupy somewhere it has sat before, such as Christ Church Oxfird
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
Twenty-nine (29) more ships and boats of various sorts (tankers, cargo ships, tug boats) hit in the waters around Crimea. One of the tug boats hit had a damaged vessel previously hit under tow.
Russia has responded by banning marine traffic through the Kerch straight and along the Don-Azov canal (which connects the Don river to the Azov sea).
That's now 77 vessels hit during the last six days, out of an estimated Russian merchant fleet of ~120 in the Azov sea.
Meanwhile, on the land corridor to Crimea, fuel in Mariupol is up to 300 roubles a litre - about £3.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
When you look through the lists of Labour MPs it becomes less weird. As does Burnham's temptation to fill his cabinet up with Blairite retreads from the House of Lords. They are desperately short of talent (and I am not making a party political point here, the opposition is no better).
There's some reasonable, but not quite ready for the very frontline, talent coming through. Darren Jones seems capable enough, Torsten Bell has decent instincts and enough of a brian to make them happen. You may not like what Bridget Phillipson does, but she does it with an oomph that is missing from many. Nature recovers after a forest fire, but it takes time. The problem for the Conservatives is that their electoral calamity was both sharper and more recent.
The ungallant interpretation of Andy's Recent Thrust is that, had he left it until 2027, he wouldn't have won in a walkover, and hence may well not have won at all.
X doesn't show the video without logging in, but the frame shown of the ice cream van is clearly AI-generated. So I'm not sure high production values is right...
That’s not high production value. That’s generative AI.
And bad gen AI at that.
Its along the lines of what weird "channel" (which I am very suspious of) that pumps pro-Reform "funnies", Crewkerne Gazette,
It could also do with editing down to about half the length.
Given the guys long experience of working in the tv, good media comms doesn't surprise. I would have expected even tighter editting etc. I would be shocked if he doesn't have mates at the BBC who edit programmes / trailer etc, and absolutely nailed won't have trouble finding ones that hate Farage.
I don't think that video was done by Count Binface - it's not on his social media..
Was at the Clermont last week - was OK nothing great.
Next weekend I'm staying at the Great Northern (which is the one on Kings Cross) so will report back - but we are very fairly often for drinks so the bar is very acceptable.
London hotel prices have gone up so much recently.
The cost of living crisis is real.
Early on this week I nearly fainted when I found out 30g of Beluga caviar is now £400 in Claridge's (plus service charge).
I paid £250 in 2023.
Claridge’s wanted £900 for a basic room, 35sqm. £1,250 for a balcony room.
In my mind the fanciest London hotels were in the £500 range, it’s obviously been a long time since I checked them out! Thinking back, it’s probably about 20 years!
It's causing me grief.
Back in 2023 I took my then girlfriend for a 4 night stay at Claridge's.
Current girlfriend wants the same experience but the prices are shocking, I'd be paying nearly double 3 years later.
As one of my colleagues put it, the cost must be really bad if even I baulking at the costs.
Last time I stayed in London with the missus, we were counting the pennies and stayed at a crappy Ibis next to CIty Airport and a B&B on Edgeware Rd.
This time I thought I’d push the boat out and surprise her with a stay in a fancy place, as a thank-you to her for spending the previous week with my family, but after spending the morning researching the signature hotels they’re all miles over budget.
I’ve realised that Dubai hotels are great value, there’s almost nothing above £600-700 for a king room, and the Burj-al-Arab is £1,000 for a suite (but closed for refurb at the moment).
To be honest, if you really want to treat her, perhaps go for a luxury hotel outside of London.
Pound for pound those places are much better.
One of the reasons I really don't like The Ritz is that the gentlemen are required to wear suits and ties in the public areas at all time, no exceptions.
Claridge's don't have such a ludicrous dress policy.
Which is why it is also useful to check such policies.
Agree and would put in a vote for Edinburgh if the Sandpits are flying anyway.
Lots of very nice hotels. Actually my pick for this I've not been to - Gleneagles Townhouse.
Plenty more than that though - Prestonfield, The Balmoral being two good ones.
We did do a brief trip to Edinburgh last year and she liked it, so will definitely go back at some point. Our family gathering was in Glasgow so it was a quick day trip.
This year’s family gathering is a little further south though, about 300 miles further south, so showing her a different region of the country this time.
Isn’t the trick in Edinburgh to stay in the W Hotel “turd”, as it’s the only place in the city where you don’t have to look at it from the outside?
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
Also UC housing element is paid to lower pay families to help with rent but not with mortgages.
Which is silly, because if it was paid to clear a mortgage then you could see a plausible end point to having to pay it. Pay rent and you’re paying it for life. Also, you trap people in poverty.
Very nice for landlords, but dumb for the country.
My policy: allow UC to pay mortgages, and re-instate pre-2008 liar loans up to the value which UC could plausibly cover (say, £100k). For everyone, not just UC recipients.
About bloody time after he initially tried to double down in defense of his abhorrent comments in his pathetic attempt to try to define Ann Widdecombe! What ever your views of Ann Widdecombe as a longtime Conservative MP and Minister and then a media celebrity during her initial retirement from politics before she then reentered the political fray and joined the Brexit party and becoming an MEP and then onto Nigel Farage's latest political vehicle Reform, to reduce her life and career to the fact she never married in those terms was beyond the pale!!
She was the subject of a fair amount of gender based abuse during her career as I recall.
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
8.0658x10^67
The way to think of it is that you have 52 positions in the deck in which you can place a card.
The first card you place can occupy any of the 52 positions, the second card can occupy 51 positions (all bar the one taken by the first card), the 3rd card can occupy 50 places, and so on until you get to the last card which has only one place to go.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
It’s not a market failure at all.
If you assume that the rent is reflecting if the value to the tenant then it should reflect the fully loaded cost plus a premium for the ability to terminate a tenancy at short notice.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
About bloody time after he initially tried to double down in defense of his abhorrent comments in his pathetic attempt to try to define Ann Widdecombe! What ever your views of Ann Widdecombe as a longtime Conservative MP and Minister and then a media celebrity during her initial retirement from politics before she then reentered the political fray and joined the Brexit party and becoming an MEP and then onto Nigel Farage's latest political vehicle Reform, to reduce her life and career to the fact she never married in those terms was beyond the pale!!
She was the subject of a fair amount of gender based abuse during her career as I recall.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Isn't the key thing when you bought the property you are renting out?
Yes, and, no.
It will appear that way to most people, but it's the current price that matters, because your alternative to renting out the house is to sell it and invest the proceeds elsewhere. And if you sell it that will be at the current market price.
That's right. Its yield as an investment is determined by rental income (after expenses) and current market value. If that's above 5% you're doing ok.
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
8.0658x10^67
The way to think of it is that you have 52 positions in the deck in which you can place a card.
The first card you place can occupy any of the 52 positions, the second card can occupy 51 positions (all bar the one taken by the first card), the 3rd card can occupy 50 places, and so on until you get to the last card which has only one place to go.
That's only true if the order of the cards is genuinely random. DJL's interesting point is that, in practice, poor shuffling technique is a very inefficient means of getting to a random deck order, and so the number of possible variations is much lower.
Given a deck that was in the initial state when bought from a shop, and subject to a cursory shuffle, the probability of a six of diamonds being next to a seven of diamonds is a lot higher then you would assume given a perfectly randomly-ordered deck.
The interesting question is whether you can make a reasonable stab at estimating how much more likely.
Hmm. There is a difference between an obituary and a tribute and yesterday was the time for the latter. We don't speak ill of the dead, at least not within a few hours of her murder. That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother. She wasn't, and I do not think she would like the posthumous sanctification some are attempting.
Here is the gift link to the Telegraph's obituary:-
Ann Widdecombe, redoubtable Tory politician who was robust on moral questions and Brexit Her appeal was her frankness and incorruptibility; in an era of spin, she won plaudits for saying what she thought https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/29c6a0e57b0e5668
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
The UK is a very strange federal state, in that the largest and most prosperous part of the country, with 85% of the population, is directly run by the central government, as a "territory" in US terms.
However Governments seem to want to impose ever more ingenious and ad-hoc arrangements on us, and the only option ever considered is to split England into penny packets. Having said that, it's not clear we need an additional layer of government as a English parliament.
My option would be radical devolution to whatever parts of the country feel like they are a suitable candidate (eg Cornwall if it wants to be) with a light touch England government exercising audit functions and a few strategic ones such as highways. If the English parliament was part time, it could occupy Westminster when the British parliament isn't sitting. Or maybe reoccupy somewhere it has sat before, such as Christ Church Oxfird
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
Also UC housing element is paid to lower pay families to help with rent but not with mortgages.
Which is silly, because if it was paid to clear a mortgage then you could see a plausible end point to having to pay it. Pay rent and you’re paying it for life. Also, you trap people in poverty.
Very nice for landlords, but dumb for the country.
Totally agree. Perhaps the fairest way would be to use the Local Housing Allowance, which caps rent support for tenants renting privately; pay that if you're renting privately and or have a mortgage (it's means tested and pro-rated down for those who only just qualify).
LHA is not perfect, far from it, but if opened up with appropriate controls to mortgagees as well as renters it would encourage home ownership and, as @ydoethur says, lead to an eventual end to the need to support that family's housing.
That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother.
Right wing shitbags get a bit snowflake-y and abandon their free speech principles whenever anybody slags off their shaheeds. That c-nt Charlie Kirk, etc.
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
8.0658x10^67
The way to think of it is that you have 52 positions in the deck in which you can place a card.
The first card you place can occupy any of the 52 positions, the second card can occupy 51 positions (all bar the one taken by the first card), the 3rd card can occupy 50 places, and so on until you get to the last card which has only one place to go.
That's only true if the order of the cards is genuinely random. DJL's interesting point is that, in practice, poor shuffling technique is a very inefficient means of getting to a random deck order, and so the number of possible variations is much lower.
Given a deck that was in the initial state when bought from a shop, and subject to a cursory shuffle, the probability of a six of diamonds being next to a seven of diamonds is a lot higher then you would assume given a perfectly randomly-ordered deck.
The interesting question is whether you can make a reasonable stab at estimating how much more likely.
It’s worse than that.
There are people out there who can shuffle, cut, riffle, a deck of cards 50 times and it somehow ends up back in new deck order!
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
I'll believe that when I see an English Parliament.
That would just be continuity centralisation.
No, it could be a radically decentralised government with, say, Hampshire carrying out most of the functions of Scotland. The England government would exercise an audit function plus a couple of strategic ones, eg national rail and roads, and the legislators would meet a couple of weeks a year
You can do that from Westminster. Otherwise you're just creating another middleman org. To make an English parliament work you'd have to get rid of Westminster, ie replace the UK as a sovereign entity with its constituent nations.
That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother.
Right wing shitbags get a bit snowflake-y and abandon their free speech principles whenever anybody slags off their shaheeds. That c-nt Charlie Kirk, etc.
It wasn’t right-wingers celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
The UK is a very strange federal state, in that the largest and most prosperous part of the country, with 85% of the population, is directly run by the central government, as a "territory" in US terms.
However Governments seem to want to impose ever more ingenious and ad-hoc arrangements on us, and the only option ever considered is to split England into penny packets. Having said that, it's not clear we need an additional layer of government as a English parliament.
My option would be radical devolution to whatever parts of the country feel like they are a suitable candidate (eg Cornwall if it wants to be) with a light touch England government exercising audit functions and a few strategic ones such as highways. If the English parliament was part time, it could occupy Westminster when the British parliament isn't sitting. Or maybe reoccupy somewhere it has sat before, such as Christ Church Oxfird
Hmm. There is a difference between an obituary and a tribute and yesterday was the time for the latter. We don't speak ill of the dead, at least not within a few hours of her murder. That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother. She wasn't, and I do not think she would like the posthumous sanctification some are attempting.
Here is the gift link to the Telegraph's obituary:-
Ann Widdecombe, redoubtable Tory politician who was robust on moral questions and Brexit Her appeal was her frankness and incorruptibility; in an era of spin, she won plaudits for saying what she thought https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/29c6a0e57b0e5668
Was she a Tory politician? I thought she'd joined Reform.
Telegraph will be calling Churchill a Liberal next.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
Round here, annual rents seem to be 10-15% of the property value. Yes you have expenses, but then you have an appreciating asset as well. And if you borrow the money to buy the property you can offset the interest against tax.
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
It is an absurd market failure if rents are covering the landlord's mortgage, if the tenant can afford the mortgage they should be able to get their own.
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
It’s not a market failure at all.
If you assume that the rent is reflecting if the value to the tenant then it should reflect the fully loaded cost plus a premium for the ability to terminate a tenancy at short notice.
Not at all, since the flexibility premium is countered by the insecurity costs which you have not factored into your expression.
And the appropriate mortgage cost as the baseline would be the interest-only element, not the capital repayments.
Without the market failure rent should be a cheaper option than mortgages, with the mortgage holder paying their own capital repayments not the tenant - as it is in many countries without such an overly regulated market.
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
8.0658x10^67
The way to think of it is that you have 52 positions in the deck in which you can place a card.
The first card you place can occupy any of the 52 positions, the second card can occupy 51 positions (all bar the one taken by the first card), the 3rd card can occupy 50 places, and so on until you get to the last card which has only one place to go.
That's only true if the order of the cards is genuinely random. DJL's interesting point is that, in practice, poor shuffling technique is a very inefficient means of getting to a random deck order, and so the number of possible variations is much lower.
Given a deck that was in the initial state when bought from a shop, and subject to a cursory shuffle, the probability of a six of diamonds being next to a seven of diamonds is a lot higher then you would assume given a perfectly randomly-ordered deck.
The interesting question is whether you can make a reasonable stab at estimating how much more likely.
It’s easy to make a reasonable stab at estimating how much more likely. Buy some packs of cards, shuffle them badly and observe the frequency. #empiricismforthewin
That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother.
Right wing shitbags get a bit snowflake-y and abandon their free speech principles whenever anybody slags off their shaheeds. That c-nt Charlie Kirk, etc.
I sense that some on the right are hoping for their own Jo Cox event here. ID of the perpetrator permitting.
That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother.
Right wing shitbags get a bit snowflake-y and abandon their free speech principles whenever anybody slags off their shaheeds. That c-nt Charlie Kirk, etc.
It wasn’t right-wingers celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.
But what is worse, celebrating or committing the murder? It looks from my side of the conspiratorial fence like right-wingers perpetrated the assassination via the exploding microphone.
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
8.0658x10^67
The way to think of it is that you have 52 positions in the deck in which you can place a card.
The first card you place can occupy any of the 52 positions, the second card can occupy 51 positions (all bar the one taken by the first card), the 3rd card can occupy 50 places, and so on until you get to the last card which has only one place to go.
That's only true if the order of the cards is genuinely random. DJL's interesting point is that, in practice, poor shuffling technique is a very inefficient means of getting to a random deck order, and so the number of possible variations is much lower.
Given a deck that was in the initial state when bought from a shop, and subject to a cursory shuffle, the probability of a six of diamonds being next to a seven of diamonds is a lot higher then you would assume given a perfectly randomly-ordered deck.
The interesting question is whether you can make a reasonable stab at estimating how much more likely.
It’s worse than that.
There are people out there who can shuffle, cut, riffle, a deck of cards 50 times and it somehow ends up back in new deck order!
Hmm. There is a difference between an obituary and a tribute and yesterday was the time for the latter. We don't speak ill of the dead, at least not within a few hours of her murder. That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother. She wasn't, and I do not think she would like the posthumous sanctification some are attempting.
Here is the gift link to the Telegraph's obituary:-
Ann Widdecombe, redoubtable Tory politician who was robust on moral questions and Brexit Her appeal was her frankness and incorruptibility; in an era of spin, she won plaudits for saying what she thought https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/29c6a0e57b0e5668
Was she a Tory politician? I thought she'd joined Reform.
Telegraph will be calling Churchill a Liberal next.
Was at the Clermont last week - was OK nothing great.
Next weekend I'm staying at the Great Northern (which is the one on Kings Cross) so will report back - but we are very fairly often for drinks so the bar is very acceptable.
London hotel prices have gone up so much recently.
The cost of living crisis is real.
Early on this week I nearly fainted when I found out 30g of Beluga caviar is now £400 in Claridge's (plus service charge).
I paid £250 in 2023.
Claridge’s wanted £900 for a basic room, 35sqm. £1,250 for a balcony room.
In my mind the fanciest London hotels were in the £500 range, it’s obviously been a long time since I checked them out! Thinking back, it’s probably about 20 years!
It's causing me grief.
Back in 2023 I took my then girlfriend for a 4 night stay at Claridge's.
Current girlfriend wants the same experience but the prices are shocking, I'd be paying nearly double 3 years later.
As one of my colleagues put it, the cost must be really bad if even I baulking at the costs.
Last time I stayed in London with the missus, we were counting the pennies and stayed at a crappy Ibis next to CIty Airport and a B&B on Edgeware Rd.
This time I thought I’d push the boat out and surprise her with a stay in a fancy place, as a thank-you to her for spending the previous week with my family, but after spending the morning researching the signature hotels they’re all miles over budget.
I’ve realised that Dubai hotels are great value, there’s almost nothing above £600-700 for a king room, and the Burj-al-Arab is £1,000 for a suite (but closed for refurb at the moment).
To be honest, if you really want to treat her, perhaps go for a luxury hotel outside of London.
Pound for pound those places are much better.
One of the reasons I really don't like The Ritz is that the gentlemen are required to wear suits and ties in the public areas at all time, no exceptions.
Claridge's don't have such a ludicrous dress policy.
Which is why it is also useful to check such policies.
Agree and would put in a vote for Edinburgh if the Sandpits are flying anyway.
Lots of very nice hotels. Actually my pick for this I've not been to - Gleneagles Townhouse.
Plenty more than that though - Prestonfield, The Balmoral being two good ones.
Edinburgh in August though?
I missed that it was August. Yes, scrap the idea unless you like that sort of thing. Could try and get Tattoo tickets with your hotel savings!
Hmm. There is a difference between an obituary and a tribute and yesterday was the time for the latter. We don't speak ill of the dead, at least not within a few hours of her murder. That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother. She wasn't, and I do not think she would like the posthumous sanctification some are attempting.
Here is the gift link to the Telegraph's obituary:-
Ann Widdecombe, redoubtable Tory politician who was robust on moral questions and Brexit Her appeal was her frankness and incorruptibility; in an era of spin, she won plaudits for saying what she thought https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/29c6a0e57b0e5668
Was she a Tory politician? I thought she'd joined Reform.
Telegraph will be calling Churchill a Liberal next.
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
8.0658x10^67
The way to think of it is that you have 52 positions in the deck in which you can place a card.
The first card you place can occupy any of the 52 positions, the second card can occupy 51 positions (all bar the one taken by the first card), the 3rd card can occupy 50 places, and so on until you get to the last card which has only one place to go.
That's only true if the order of the cards is genuinely random. DJL's interesting point is that, in practice, poor shuffling technique is a very inefficient means of getting to a random deck order, and so the number of possible variations is much lower.
Given a deck that was in the initial state when bought from a shop, and subject to a cursory shuffle, the probability of a six of diamonds being next to a seven of diamonds is a lot higher then you would assume given a perfectly randomly-ordered deck.
The interesting question is whether you can make a reasonable stab at estimating how much more likely.
Ensuring that something is genuinely random is a lot harder than people think.
For example, I once managed to develop a technique for flipping a (50p) coin with sufficient consistency (of spin rate and height) that I could return a heads* much more often than half the time.
* What I was actually doing was returning the opposite face to the one face up when I flipped the coin. So, when I first tested it, it looked random, because the coin was oriented randomly when I flipped it. Varying the flip of the coin to reliably return heads given an even mix of starting orientation would be a lot harder.
That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother.
Right wing shitbags get a bit snowflake-y and abandon their free speech principles whenever anybody slags off their shaheeds. That c-nt Charlie Kirk, etc.
It wasn’t right-wingers celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.
No, it was right-wingers abandoning their free speech principles, which is what Dura said.
I didn't think he'd manage it. I guess mayors are no longer a joke now, a place for has beens and never will bes.
Or was the fact he was an MP previously and still known to many of them enough to make being a mayor still viable as a leadership prospect?
It is kind of weird that not a single MP out of 400 was considered a genuine option.
One of my current unfocused musings is that we have a severe problem in the UK in the lack of alternative routes to influential political positions, other than inside party structures. That denudes local or regional civil society.
Cameron's Open Primaries were genuinely interesting, but I'm thinking that Regional Mayors are partly where it is at now.
To me this is another thing that Kemi has called the wrong way - stating (if I heard her correctly) that greater devolution is an attack on democracy at Westminster.
Yes, that's among the more stupid things she has said. England in particular is in desperate need of more devolution of power. We are an absurdly over-centralised state.
The UK is a very strange federal state, in that the largest and most prosperous part of the country, with 85% of the population, is directly run by the central government, as a "territory" in US terms.
However Governments seem to want to impose ever more ingenious and ad-hoc arrangements on us, and the only option ever considered is to split England into penny packets. Having said that, it's not clear we need an additional layer of government as a English parliament.
My option would be radical devolution to whatever parts of the country feel like they are a suitable candidate (eg Cornwall if it wants to be) with a light touch England government exercising audit functions and a few strategic ones such as highways. If the English parliament was part time, it could occupy Westminster when the British parliament isn't sitting. Or maybe reoccupy somewhere it has sat before, such as Christ Church Oxfird
Hmm. There is a difference between an obituary and a tribute and yesterday was the time for the latter. We don't speak ill of the dead, at least not within a few hours of her murder. That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother. She wasn't, and I do not think she would like the posthumous sanctification some are attempting.
Here is the gift link to the Telegraph's obituary:-
Ann Widdecombe, redoubtable Tory politician who was robust on moral questions and Brexit Her appeal was her frankness and incorruptibility; in an era of spin, she won plaudits for saying what she thought https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/29c6a0e57b0e5668
Was she a Tory politician? I thought she'd joined Reform.
Telegraph will be calling Churchill a Liberal next.
I think she was a Tory - as with many in the party, she believed that the party left her. The same as her leaving the Anglican faith. Someone reporting the death also described her her 'deep Roman Catholic faith' - that wasn't true either. She took a stand and felt that she could no longer in good conscience be part of a Church that preached otherwise. Undoubtedly she was a very observant Catholic, but I feel she was a Protestant through and through in real conviction. Committing faithfully and grimly to her new homes in both instances.
That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother.
Right wing shitbags get a bit snowflake-y and abandon their free speech principles whenever anybody slags off their shaheeds. That c-nt Charlie Kirk, etc.
I sense that some on the right are hoping for their own Jo Cox event here. ID of the perpetrator permitting.
As an active Marxist guerilla I didn't have Ann Widdecome on my target list as the Archduke Ferdinand -style catalyst to incite the revolution.
That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother.
Right wing shitbags get a bit snowflake-y and abandon their free speech principles whenever anybody slags off their shaheeds. That c-nt Charlie Kirk, etc.
I sense that some on the right are hoping for their own Jo Cox event here. ID of the perpetrator permitting.
Speaking of the identity of the perpetrator, should the police not be forthcoming on what they are now looking for? Assuming they now have nothing to go on (this could be untrue; they could have a very strong lead), they have not been very candid that the suspect could now be literally anyone.
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
8.0658x10^67
The way to think of it is that you have 52 positions in the deck in which you can place a card.
The first card you place can occupy any of the 52 positions, the second card can occupy 51 positions (all bar the one taken by the first card), the 3rd card can occupy 50 places, and so on until you get to the last card which has only one place to go.
That's only true if the order of the cards is genuinely random. DJL's interesting point is that, in practice, poor shuffling technique is a very inefficient means of getting to a random deck order, and so the number of possible variations is much lower.
Given a deck that was in the initial state when bought from a shop, and subject to a cursory shuffle, the probability of a six of diamonds being next to a seven of diamonds is a lot higher then you would assume given a perfectly randomly-ordered deck.
The interesting question is whether you can make a reasonable stab at estimating how much more likely.
It’s worse than that.
There are people out there who can shuffle, cut, riffle, a deck of cards 50 times and it somehow ends up back in new deck order!
Was at the Clermont last week - was OK nothing great.
Next weekend I'm staying at the Great Northern (which is the one on Kings Cross) so will report back - but we are very fairly often for drinks so the bar is very acceptable.
London hotel prices have gone up so much recently.
The cost of living crisis is real.
Early on this week I nearly fainted when I found out 30g of Beluga caviar is now £400 in Claridge's (plus service charge).
I paid £250 in 2023.
Claridge’s wanted £900 for a basic room, 35sqm. £1,250 for a balcony room.
In my mind the fanciest London hotels were in the £500 range, it’s obviously been a long time since I checked them out! Thinking back, it’s probably about 20 years!
It's causing me grief.
Back in 2023 I took my then girlfriend for a 4 night stay at Claridge's.
Current girlfriend wants the same experience but the prices are shocking, I'd be paying nearly double 3 years later.
As one of my colleagues put it, the cost must be really bad if even I baulking at the costs.
Last time I stayed in London with the missus, we were counting the pennies and stayed at a crappy Ibis next to CIty Airport and a B&B on Edgeware Rd.
This time I thought I’d push the boat out and surprise her with a stay in a fancy place, as a thank-you to her for spending the previous week with my family, but after spending the morning researching the signature hotels they’re all miles over budget.
I’ve realised that Dubai hotels are great value, there’s almost nothing above £600-700 for a king room, and the Burj-al-Arab is £1,000 for a suite (but closed for refurb at the moment).
To be honest, if you really want to treat her, perhaps go for a luxury hotel outside of London.
Pound for pound those places are much better.
One of the reasons I really don't like The Ritz is that the gentlemen are required to wear suits and ties in the public areas at all time, no exceptions.
Claridge's don't have such a ludicrous dress policy.
Which is why it is also useful to check such policies.
Agree and would put in a vote for Edinburgh if the Sandpits are flying anyway.
Lots of very nice hotels. Actually my pick for this I've not been to - Gleneagles Townhouse.
Plenty more than that though - Prestonfield, The Balmoral being two good ones.
We did do a brief trip to Edinburgh last year and she liked it, so will definitely go back at some point. Our family gathering was in Glasgow so it was a quick day trip.
This year’s family gathering is a little further south though, about 300 miles further south, so showing her a different region of the country this time.
Isn’t the trick in Edinburgh to stay in the W Hotel “turd”, as it’s the only place in the city where you don’t have to look at it from the outside?
Hahah, there is that, though it's not visible from Prestonfield, or the castle-facing side of the Balmoral.
The fact that the odds on a particular event were long a few months ago, and that event has now occurred is called life. What odds would you have got a few weeks ago on a Clacton byelection in which Farage was a candidate and a bin the principal opposition?
Odds on a Clacton byelection as such in the next X months would have been longish but realistic - Farage could have retired from politics at any time. But what has occurred was unthinkable.
The hand of cards I dealt yesterday was an unquantifiable number of trillions to one chance, has never happened before and will never occur again.
The obstacles Burnham faced a few months ago were substantial and real, though less than the obstacles in the way of Foinavon in the 1967 National.
I always wonder about the cards thing – that every hand of cards is unique, or every shuffled pack of cards is unique.
Of course the number of permutations is astronomical but are we overlooking two key facts about real life? Most people don't shuffle properly and all new packs of cards start off in the same state. My guess is the number of arrangements following one or two bad shuffles of new packs is relatively small.
There was a really good piece on this on More or Less on R4 yesterday afternoon funnily enough. To give you an idea of the numbers the number of possible variations with only 13 cards is in the order of 6bn. With 52 cards it is up to a number which (IIRC) has something like 67 digits. If you are not persuaded its worth a listen on Iplayer.
Yes, the number is 52! (52 factorial, which means 52x51x50…x3x2x1)
8.0658x10^67
The number of seconds in 6 weeks is 10!
14! seconds ago was, I think, the year of the eleventh [Ancient] Olympic Games at which Leochares of Messenia won the stadion race (then the only event, a sprint of about 180m). In 736 BC.
That said, some commentators are reacting hysterically to any criticism as if Ann Widdecombe was the Queen Mother.
Right wing shitbags get a bit snowflake-y and abandon their free speech principles whenever anybody slags off their shaheeds. That c-nt Charlie Kirk, etc.
It wasn’t right-wingers celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.
But what is worse, celebrating or committing the murder? It looks from my side of the conspiratorial fence like right-wingers perpetrated the assassination via the exploding microphone.
Anyone who thinks that, has spent way too much time listening to Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson.
The pre-trial hearing was this past week, and it’s very clear from the evidence that the guy charged with the murder is the guy who did the murder.
Comments
https://x.com/adamboultonTABB/status/2075893192872927456
@rcolvile
·
1h
I wish some on the Left would apply a basic sense test to their 'research'. If landlords really were making a 70% pre-tax profit margin, as this report claims, people would be flooding into the sector - instead, they're fleeing in droves.
https://x.com/rcolvile/status/2075870063828095403
(What I'd actually do is what the Spanish did once the Spanish government accepted that General Franco was dead. Decide what powers could be devolved and put them in a box. Let's say everything that the Scottish government does now as a first draft. Then tell counites/collections of counties that they can take any of the powers out of that box that they can make a case for and win a referendum on. If a region doesn't want any of those powers, that's fine, but that power for that region stays at Westminster.
Can the Andyman really give up the powers that have fallen into his lap? I hope so, but I admit that I fear not.
However Governments seem to want to impose ever more ingenious and ad-hoc arrangements on us, and the only option ever considered is to split England into penny packets. Having said that, it's not clear we need an additional layer of government as a English parliament.
My option would be radical devolution to whatever parts of the country feel like they are a suitable candidate (eg Cornwall if it wants to be) with a light touch England government exercising audit functions and a few strategic ones such as highways. If the English parliament was part time, it could occupy Westminster when the British parliament isn't sitting. Or maybe reoccupy somewhere it has sat before, such as Christ Church Oxfird
Mr Memory
@AmIRightSir
10 years ago today Theresa May became Leader of the Conservative Party (becoming PM two days later)
Also I am not sure you could easily devolve some Scottish powers regionally, eg railways and highways. So there needs to be some overarching English government.
(Unlimited Caviar obvs)
Its along the lines of what weird "channel" (which I am very suspious of) that pumps pro-Reform "funnies", Crewkerne Gazette,
So I'm unconvinced that landlords are poor. However they seem to be completely averse to accepting any sort of risk, or diversifying their portfolio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_William,_Duke_of_Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel#/media/File:Herzog_Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Braunschweig-Oels,_der_Schwarze_Herzog.jpg
Partially to do with regulations, eg criteria that deem that someone who can afford rents can't afford a cheaper mortgage than that which they're reliably paying already.
It is both unnecessary to a decentralised England, and by its existence might, I suspect, encourage the arguments for Scottish independence.
It will appear that way to most people, but it's the current price that matters, because your alternative to renting out the house is to sell it and invest the proceeds elsewhere. And if you sell it that will be at the current market price.
#pedanticbetting.com
Very nice for landlords, but dumb for the country.
Lots of very nice hotels. Actually my pick for this I've not been to - Gleneagles Townhouse.
Plenty more than that though - Prestonfield, The Balmoral being two good ones.
And of course we're back to British people hating other people, so being resolutely opposed to doing anything that might help them.
Remember when MPs were banned from claiming mortgage payments in London on expenses, what happened is that they all still bought apartments in Westminster and rented them to each other!
8.0658x10^67
I might move to Lincoln or York next..
Russia has responded by banning marine traffic through the Kerch straight and along the Don-Azov canal (which connects the Don river to the Azov sea).
That's now 77 vessels hit during the last six days, out of an estimated Russian merchant fleet of ~120 in the Azov sea.
Meanwhile, on the land corridor to Crimea, fuel in Mariupol is up to 300 roubles a litre - about £3.
There was a group of 4 lads there already on their 3rd pint of lager with a 4th one lined up..
The ungallant interpretation of Andy's Recent Thrust is that, had he left it until 2027, he wouldn't have won in a walkover, and hence may well not have won at all.
https://xcancel.com/ThatTimWalker/status/2075868244330656041
This year’s family gathering is a little further south though, about 300 miles further south, so showing her a different region of the country this time.
Isn’t the trick in Edinburgh to stay in the W Hotel “turd”, as it’s the only place in the city where you don’t have to look at it from the outside?
The first card you place can occupy any of the 52 positions, the second card can occupy 51 positions (all bar the one taken by the first card), the 3rd card can occupy 50 places, and so on until you get to the last card which has only one place to go.
If you assume that the rent is reflecting if the value to the tenant then it should reflect the fully loaded cost plus a premium for the ability to terminate a tenancy at short notice.
Hence : mortgage costs + return on equity + annual maintenance cost + flexibility premium
Almost any business is fantastically profitable if you ignore it's main costs - even OpenAI makes bank on this basis.
https://www.ncregister.com/news/ann-widdecombe-in-memoriam
Given a deck that was in the initial state when bought from a shop, and subject to a cursory shuffle, the probability of a six of diamonds being next to a seven of diamonds is a lot higher then you would assume given a perfectly randomly-ordered deck.
The interesting question is whether you can make a reasonable stab at estimating how much more likely.
Here is the gift link to the Telegraph's obituary:-
Ann Widdecombe, redoubtable Tory politician who was robust on moral questions and Brexit
Her appeal was her frankness and incorruptibility; in an era of spin, she won plaudits for saying what she thought
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/29c6a0e57b0e5668
https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk
LHA is not perfect, far from it, but if opened up with appropriate controls to mortgagees as well as renters it would encourage home ownership and, as @ydoethur says, lead to an eventual end to the need to support that family's housing.
There are people out there who can shuffle, cut, riffle, a deck of cards 50 times and it somehow ends up back in new deck order!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Turner_(magician)
Telegraph will be calling Churchill a Liberal next.
And the appropriate mortgage cost as the baseline would be the interest-only element, not the capital repayments.
Without the market failure rent should be a cheaper option than mortgages, with the mortgage holder paying their own capital repayments not the tenant - as it is in many countries without such an overly regulated market.
She died a Reform voter/member.
For example, I once managed to develop a technique for flipping a (50p) coin with sufficient consistency (of spin rate and height) that I could return a heads* much more often than half the time.
* What I was actually doing was returning the opposite face to the one face up when I flipped the coin. So, when I first tested it, it looked random, because the coin was oriented randomly when I flipped it. Varying the flip of the coin to reliably return heads given an even mix of starting orientation would be a lot harder.
😉
Watching two other experienced magicians totally open-mouthed while sitting right next to him, says all you need to know.
The pre-trial hearing was this past week, and it’s very clear from the evidence that the guy charged with the murder is the guy who did the murder.