Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 11 weeks of EURef polling and all but two of the surveys on

24

Comments

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    @MaxPB - I thought you were a banker. You do know that someone who buys a share is not actually putting money into the company, in most cases, but is just pocketing the dividends and hoping for a capital gain in the end? What's the difference between that and buying a flat to let?

    The difference with stockholding is that resell of stock is a requirement for the initial investment. Without it, there would be no initial investment.

    This is not true of Buy To Let. BTL is not required in order to make the development of homes profitable and to allow private investment in development. All BTL does is distort the market at every level, from the price of second hand properties, to the price of new build to the very price of land itself. All suffer from the toxic impact of BTL and none require BTL to be viable.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    john_zims said:

    'Data from the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that the tax take from the North Sea would collapse from £2.2bn last year to just £130m in 2015/16, highlighting the intense pressure the sector is under from the oil price crash. Four years earlier the sector’s tax contribution was almost £11bn.'


    Slight variation from the SNP's forecast last year.

    Tories were forecasting even higher or did you miss that bit.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    watford30 said:

    In fairness to landlords, I would divide the private landlords into 2 categories:

    1) Accidental landlords - who end up with a spare property. They mostly want to see the mortgage paid and someone who won't wreck the place
    2) Serial BTL-ers - these are the ones who are more likely to be unscrupulous or to have sub-standard properties.

    Somehow you're avoiding -

    3) BTL'ers with one or two properties let in good condition, that they would like to keep that way, rented at favourable rates. They're scrupulous and fair.

    These are probably the majority of landlords.
    Correct. I also doubt that 'serial' BTLers are unscrupulous either. The plain fact is there are a lot of them these days and they are unbalancing the market. And sine they are making money then they are open for taxation. Its a shame but its a fact of life.
    I think many of these BTLers will come unstuck further down the line. I know someone who took out a big second mortgage and used it to pay the deposits on three flats, he has now released the equity from one of them to buy another. These people are not taking into account future interest rate rises, slowdown in demand, tenant voids or dodgy tenants.

    Many of these people are in for a big shock.
    The risk/ reward ratio usually works out in the end. Much like betting I suppose which is why bookmakers (who must be super parasites) make a living.
    The risk/reward ratio on Buy To Let is completely off the chart in terms of investments available and distorts the market horribly.

    The worst part is that the more private wealth you control, the larger the return because Buy To Let offers two substantial returns on investment, Rental Income and Capital Gain. One of which is untaxed at source and the other is easily avoidable by determined individuals.

    If you buy with cash, you get both income streams. If you buy with borrowing, then the continuous stream is much higher than the cost of borrowing (in general).

    It is by definition a parasitical relationship which is made worse by the higher level of wealth the parasite starts with. The hole thing is broken and has NOT resulted in the ONE THING its proponents claim - that the housing stock will expand to the required level.

    In reality, it ensures that the housing stock does not expand sufficiently because both developers can extend their profit but drip feeding the development of new property and, given the scale of landbanking clearly find this an excellent way to do business.
  • @andybell5news: "If @jeremycorbyn tries to whip against us there will be carnage" one Labour MP tells me on #Syria

    The Labour party is increasingly resembling Syria, with incomprehensible factions and senseless brutality on all sides. Sooner or later we'll see a stream of refugees.
    OGH, Please bring back the 'Like' button.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    malcolmg said:

    Apparently the Russkies are going to close all communication channels with Turkey (militarily at least).

    This sort of war is about two thousand years off my preferred period, but won't that make confusion greater and accidents likelier to occur?

    Turkey deserves a good slapping
    Stuffing surely.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    I don't hold out huge hopes for the ability of air-strikes to materially degrade ISIS. But I can see a scenario where there is good intelligence that their senior commanders are meeting to plan a campaign of violence. In those circumstances, I would want our planes available to take them out. We shouldn't just rely on others to take on that role.

    I doubt our two planes will make much difference
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    In Britain? Must've missed them sorry
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    @election_data@election_data · 3m3 minutes ago
    I'm close to calling Oldham West 50/50

    Any value on Sporting Index spreads?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,924
    Kevin Schofield ‏@PolhomeEditor 10m10 minutes ago
    Strong rumour that Jeremy Corbyn may join a Stop The War march this weekend. "He'd be marching against his own frontbench," says a source.

    If Corbyn does turn up and march, will his party follow him? His authority looks shot this evening. Plenty of people happy to talk to the media tonight.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,924
    ITV News ‏@itvnews 10s11 seconds ago
    Jeremy Corbyn wants to whip Labour MPs to vote against airstrikes in Syria, Labour source tells @carldinnen http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-11-26/corbyn-cant-support-pms-plan-for-uk-airstrikes-in-syria/
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,609

    Labour are far from rock-bottom.

    Can they go below zero?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The housing problem?

    Under-occupancy in the main.

    Social housing is an especially absymal allocator of resources because it grants lifetime tenancies to people whose domestic circumstances will commonly change as family size fluctuates.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    Dair said:

    watford30 said:

    In fairness to landlords, I would divide the private landlords into 2 categories:

    1) Accidental landlords - who end up with a spare property. They mostly want to see the mortgage paid and someone who won't wreck the place
    2) Serial BTL-ers - these are the ones who are more likely to be unscrupulous or to have sub-standard properties.

    Somehow you're avoiding -

    3) BTL'ers with one or two properties let in good condition, that they would like to keep that way, rented at favourable rates. They're scrupulous and fair.

    These are probably the majority of landlords.
    Correct. I also doubt that 'serial' BTLers are unscrupulous either. The plain fact is there are a lot of them these days and they are unbalancing the market. And sine they are making money then they are open for taxation. Its a shame but its a fact of life.
    I think many of these BTLers will come unstuck further down the line. I know someone who took out a big second mortgage and used it to pay the deposits on three flats, he has now released the equity from one of them to buy another. These people are not taking into account future interest rate rises, slowdown in demand, tenant voids or dodgy tenants.

    Many of these people are in for a big shock.
    The risk/ reward ratio usually works out in the end. Much like betting I suppose which is why bookmakers (who must be super parasites) make a living.


    In reality, it ensures that the housing stock does not expand sufficiently because both developers can extend their profit but drip feeding the development of new property and, given the scale of landbanking clearly find this an excellent way to do business.
    Bollocks, I have a BTL as it was not worth giving away my old house due to the recession. It is hardly going up much in value and I make the square root of nothing off it. Many are similar, we are not all rich Tories in London with multiple properties..
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    JackW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Apparently the Russkies are going to close all communication channels with Turkey (militarily at least).

    This sort of war is about two thousand years off my preferred period, but won't that make confusion greater and accidents likelier to occur?

    Turkey deserves a good slapping
    Stuffing surely.

    LOL
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,609
    MattW said:
    I loved the line "It's nothing to do with the development, it's just an old building. Old buildings fall down all the time"

    Especially when you have dug a bloody great hole under them...
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    JackW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Apparently the Russkies are going to close all communication channels with Turkey (militarily at least).

    This sort of war is about two thousand years off my preferred period, but won't that make confusion greater and accidents likelier to occur?

    Turkey deserves a good slapping
    Stuffing surely.

    Brilliant
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    dr_spyn said:

    ITV News ‏@itvnews 10s11 seconds ago
    Jeremy Corbyn wants to whip Labour MPs to vote against airstrikes in Syria, Labour source tells @carldinnen http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-11-26/corbyn-cant-support-pms-plan-for-uk-airstrikes-in-syria/

    Assuming that the new Labour membership are of the same inclination as Commissar Corbyn, failing to fall into line will be painted as treachery and disloyalty.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    Off topic, as the font of all knowledge, can Labour really lose Oldham? I can't quite believe it.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    In Britain? Must've missed them sorry
    I hadn't realised terrorist attacks on British citizens only counts within the United Kingdom.

    The families of beheaded Britons and those massacred in Tunisia among others will be pleased to note their loss is peripheral.

    Does the government have to wait for a Paris like outrage in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to take action?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,609
    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
    We shall see.

    Now, tell me about your mahogany helicopter with the gold plated taps.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    edited November 2015
    Dixie said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    Off topic, as the font of all knowledge, can Labour really lose Oldham? I can't quite believe it.
    I think it possible but still not probable.

    Two factors have to collide to ensure a UKIP gain. Firstly, Labour need to implode further and overwhelmingly in public in the coming week to the extent that core Labour voters in Oldham West would rather actively abstain or vote UKIP.

    Secondly the UKIP by-election ground game has to reach the level of potency that was once formerly enjoyed by the LibDems.

    The former is certainly possible but the latter appears rather less likely.

  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited November 2015
    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    In Britain? Must've missed them sorry
    I hadn't realised terrorist attacks on British citizens only counts within the United Kingdom.

    The families of beheaded Britons and those massacred in Tunisia among others will be pleased to note their loss is peripheral.

    Does the government have to wait for a Paris like outrage in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to take action?

    I dare say attacks have already been attempted and foiled in Britain (nice way of pointing out four cities in different British countries there btw-punchy, really illustrated the point) so I wouldn't say the desire for bombing was more or less immediate if one succeeded.

    But the main danger we have is from a small proportion of British Muslims.. Dispatches on Monday showed what's going on in East London and online. Temporarily closing mosques, banning Burqas, whatever it takes to reduce the number of radical islamists might be a better idea than bombing the middle east again
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    malcolmg said:

    Dair said:

    In reality, it ensures that the housing stock does not expand sufficiently because both developers can extend their profit but drip feeding the development of new property and, given the scale of landbanking clearly find this an excellent way to do business.

    Bollocks, I have a BTL as it was not worth giving away my old house due to the recession. It is hardly going up much in value and I make the square root of nothing off it. Many are similar, we are not all rich Tories in London with multiple properties..
    Which is the point. Prices should be able to move down and indeed should be forced down by the OO market in some circumstances.

    Taxing your income on rental will encourage you to put the property back into the OO market even if you lose some money (which is rare but should be a genuine risk of ownership of property). This would provide an additional, more affordable property to the market.

    Strictly speaking you're not a BTL investor as you aren't buying to rent. But you are an example of how the small scale private rental market distorts the market and hurts society in general.
  • Charles said:

    Labour are far from rock-bottom.

    Can they go below zero?
    Why sure Charles!

    Much of Holland is below sea level!!

    If Corbyn tries to whip his MPs on this matter and fails, it's over bar the shouting. The Labour Constitution won't help him.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited November 2015
    Why would a Muslim in Oldham be less likely to vote Labour now than they were 1,2,3,4 weeks ago?

    25% of the population (although maybe not voters?) are muslim, as long as they turn out, Labour surely win?

    I'm obviously thinking along different lines to all the UKIP backers in Oldham, but it seems to me having the leader vehemently oppose bombing Syria may help Labour in this heat
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Dair said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dair said:

    In reality, it ensures that the housing stock does not expand sufficiently because both developers can extend their profit but drip feeding the development of new property and, given the scale of landbanking clearly find this an excellent way to do business.

    Bollocks, I have a BTL as it was not worth giving away my old house due to the recession. It is hardly going up much in value and I make the square root of nothing off it. Many are similar, we are not all rich Tories in London with multiple properties..
    Which is the point. Prices should be able to move down and indeed should be forced down by the OO market in some circumstances.

    Taxing your income on rental will encourage you to put the property back into the OO market even if you lose some money (which is rare but should be a genuine risk of ownership of property). This would provide an additional, more affordable property to the market.

    Strictly speaking you're not a BTL investor as you aren't buying to rent. But you are an example of how the small scale private rental market distorts the market and hurts society in general.
    And what happens to Malcolm's tenant?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited November 2015
    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dair said:

    In reality, it ensures that the housing stock does not expand sufficiently because both developers can extend their profit but drip feeding the development of new property and, given the scale of landbanking clearly find this an excellent way to do business.

    Bollocks, I have a BTL as it was not worth giving away my old house due to the recession. It is hardly going up much in value and I make the square root of nothing off it. Many are similar, we are not all rich Tories in London with multiple properties..
    Which is the point. Prices should be able to move down and indeed should be forced down by the OO market in some circumstances.

    Taxing your income on rental will encourage you to put the property back into the OO market even if you lose some money (which is rare but should be a genuine risk of ownership of property). This would provide an additional, more affordable property to the market.

    Strictly speaking you're not a BTL investor as you aren't buying to rent. But you are an example of how the small scale private rental market distorts the market and hurts society in general.
    And what happens to Malcolm's tenant?
    Hopefully, they occupy another property, so the available vacant housing stock remains the same. Until someone starts to build new, affordable property in serious numbers, nothing much will change, and we can all keep blaming the BTL bogeyman.
  • isam said:

    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?

    No more so than the inevitable terrorist attack if we don't start bombing them, or indeed the terrorist attacks on UK citizens which we have seen already.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    watford30 said:

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dair said:

    In reality, it ensures that the housing stock does not expand sufficiently because both developers can extend their profit but drip feeding the development of new property and, given the scale of landbanking clearly find this an excellent way to do business.

    Bollocks, I have a BTL as it was not worth giving away my old house due to the recession. It is hardly going up much in value and I make the square root of nothing off it. Many are similar, we are not all rich Tories in London with multiple properties..
    Which is the point. Prices should be able to move down and indeed should be forced down by the OO market in some circumstances.

    Taxing your income on rental will encourage you to put the property back into the OO market even if you lose some money (which is rare but should be a genuine risk of ownership of property). This would provide an additional, more affordable property to the market.

    Strictly speaking you're not a BTL investor as you aren't buying to rent. But you are an example of how the small scale private rental market distorts the market and hurts society in general.
    And what happens to Malcolm's tenant?
    They occupy another property, so the available housing stock remains the same.
    Which property?

    The private rental stock has fallen.
  • john_zims said:

    'Data from the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that the tax take from the North Sea would collapse from £2.2bn last year to just £130m in 2015/16, highlighting the intense pressure the sector is under from the oil price crash. Four years earlier the sector’s tax contribution was almost £11bn.'


    Slight variation from the SNP's forecast last year.

    Absolutely.
    Down with that sort of thing!

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,609
    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
    We shall see.

    Now, tell me about your mahogany helicopter with the gold plated taps.
    Que?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    In Britain? Must've missed them sorry
    I hadn't realised terrorist attacks on British citizens only counts within the United Kingdom.

    The families of beheaded Britons and those massacred in Tunisia among others will be pleased to note their loss is peripheral.

    Does the government have to wait for a Paris like outrage in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to take action?

    I dare say attacks have already been attempted and foiled in Britain (nice way of pointing out four cities in different British countries there btw-punchy, really illustrated the point) so I wouldn't say the desire for bombing was more or less immediate if one succeeded.

    But the main danger we have is from a small proportion of British Muslims.. Dispatches on Monday showed what's going on in East London and online. Temporarily closing mosques, banning Burqas, whatever it takes to reduce the number of radical islamists might be a better idea than bombing the middle east again
    I utterly disagree with your second paragraph

    ISIS are a fundamental attack on liberal democracy and all that we hold dear and cherish in our nation. Closing mosques and banning the burqas is an attack on our way of life from within - a spectacular own goal of epic proportions.

  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited November 2015
    chestnut said:

    watford30 said:

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dair said:

    In reality, it ensures that the housing stock does not expand sufficiently because both developers can extend their profit but drip feeding the development of new property and, given the scale of landbanking clearly find this an excellent way to do business.

    Bollocks, I have a BTL as it was not worth giving away my old house due to the recession. It is hardly going up much in value and I make the square root of nothing off it. Many are similar, we are not all rich Tories in London with multiple properties..
    Which is the point. Prices should be able to move down and indeed should be forced down by the OO market in some circumstances.

    Taxing your income on rental will encourage you to put the property back into the OO market even if you lose some money (which is rare but should be a genuine risk of ownership of property). This would provide an additional, more affordable property to the market.

    Strictly speaking you're not a BTL investor as you aren't buying to rent. But you are an example of how the small scale private rental market distorts the market and hurts society in general.
    And what happens to Malcolm's tenant?
    They occupy another property, so the available housing stock remains the same.
    Which property?

    The private rental stock has fallen.
    McSpivCo buys Malcolm's flat, and lets it to them at a higher rent perhaps? Or they manage to find another flat, that costs more too, because of competition for the property. Or they're homeless.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    In Britain? Must've missed them sorry
    I hadn't realised terrorist attacks on British citizens only counts within the United Kingdom.

    The families of beheaded Britons and those massacred in Tunisia among others will be pleased to note their loss is peripheral.

    Does the government have to wait for a Paris like outrage in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to take action?

    I dare say attacks have already been attempted and foiled in Britain (nice way of pointing out four cities in different British countries there btw-punchy, really illustrated the point) so I wouldn't say the desire for bombing was more or less immediate if one succeeded.

    But the main danger we have is from a small proportion of British Muslims.. Dispatches on Monday showed what's going on in East London and online. Temporarily closing mosques, banning Burqas, whatever it takes to reduce the number of radical islamists might be a better idea than bombing the middle east again
    I utterly disagree with your second paragraph

    ISIS are a fundamental attack on liberal democracy and all that we hold dear and cherish in our nation. Closing mosques and banning the burqas is an attack on our way of life from within - a spectacular own goal of epic proportions.

    Utterly agree to utterly disagree.. I prefer it to bombing, and the death of innocent civilians that incurs
  • isam said:

    Why would a Muslim in Oldham be less likely to vote Labour now than they were 1,2,3,4 weeks ago?

    25% of the population (although maybe not voters?) are muslim, as long as they turn out, Labour surely win?

    Indeed Sam (and good evening!) Bu the question is geting them to turn out. I am sure Labour will win his one, heck, they seem to have a good Candidate as well!

    But the clock will continue to tick...
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dair said:

    In reality, it ensures that the housing stock does not expand sufficiently because both developers can extend their profit but drip feeding the development of new property and, given the scale of landbanking clearly find this an excellent way to do business.

    Bollocks, I have a BTL as it was not worth giving away my old house due to the recession. It is hardly going up much in value and I make the square root of nothing off it. Many are similar, we are not all rich Tories in London with multiple properties..
    Which is the point. Prices should be able to move down and indeed should be forced down by the OO market in some circumstances.

    Taxing your income on rental will encourage you to put the property back into the OO market even if you lose some money (which is rare but should be a genuine risk of ownership of property). This would provide an additional, more affordable property to the market.

    Strictly speaking you're not a BTL investor as you aren't buying to rent. But you are an example of how the small scale private rental market distorts the market and hurts society in general.
    And what happens to Malcolm's tenant?
    They would get the opportunity to buy the property at a lower price without BTL distortion of the market.

    However, taxation of Rental Income is not an Golden Bullet. The complete failure of successive governments to build social housing also needs redressed. There would, once BTL is destoryed, still be a market for rental properties.

    Housing Associations should be encouraged to fill this gap and indeed should be excempt from VAT on rentals. As should private, for profit companies who agree to work in a regulated framework which would provide rental agreements very close to that of HAs.

    What I proposed - an incremental rise in the tax a few percent a year till it matches VAT and becomes VAT is not an overnight shock. It provides plenty of time and plenty of warning for the market to shift but it would and could only ever be effective as part of a package.
  • isam said:

    Utterly agree to utterly disagree.. I prefer it to bombing, and the death of innocent civilians that incurs

    Run us through how your strategy would have helped prevent the Paris attacks (actually they implemented half of your strategy).
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited November 2015

    isam said:

    Utterly agree to utterly disagree.. I prefer it to bombing, and the death of innocent civilians that incurs

    Run us through how your strategy would have helped prevent the Paris attacks (actually they implemented half of your strategy).
    You speak as though bombing Syria did stop it!!
  • Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
    We shall see.

    Now, tell me about your mahogany helicopter with the gold plated taps.
    Que?
    Wow Charles! How posh!! Does I have a Mahogany engine too? I bet the exhasut fumes smell great!!!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,125
    edited November 2015
    isam said:

    Why would a Muslim in Oldham be less likely to vote Labour now than they were 1,2,3,4 weeks ago?

    25% of the population (although maybe not voters?) are muslim, as long as they turn out, Labour surely win?

    I'm obviously thinking along different lines to all the UKIP backers in Oldham, but it seems to me having the leader vehemently oppose bombing Syria may help Labour in this heat

    25% of the population but probably nearer 20% of the electorate because their population is younger. Also probably slightly less likely to be registered.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    In Britain? Must've missed them sorry
    I hadn't realised terrorist attacks on British citizens only counts within the United Kingdom.

    The families of beheaded Britons and those massacred in Tunisia among others will be pleased to note their loss is peripheral.

    Does the government have to wait for a Paris like outrage in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to take action?

    I dare say attacks have already been attempted and foiled in Britain (nice way of pointing out
    I utterly disagree with your second paragraph

    ISIS are a fundamental attack on liberal democracy and all that we hold dear and cherish in our nation. Closing mosques and banning the burqas is an attack on our way of life from within - a spectacular own goal of epic proportions.

    Utterly agree to utterly disagree.. I prefer it to bombing, and the death of innocent civilians that incurs
    Do you think banning the burqa or closing mosques will deter ISIS from attacking UK citizens and interests?

    Innocent British citizens have already been murdered. How many UK casualties would you have us suffer before we took further military action against ISIS?

    How many Paris like outrages must we endure?

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Dair said:

    They would get the opportunity to buy the property at a lower price without BTL distortion of the market.

    The only opportunity they get is to compete for a house with every one else who is seeking to buy, and that opportunity itself relies on their capacity to raise a deposit and secure funding from a lender.

    If they can't do that, all that has happened is a reduction in the supply of housing that they can reasonably get.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,125
    edited November 2015
    The gods don't seem to be on Labour's side. Rain is forecast in Oldham pretty much every day until polling day, which I reckon will hit their vote harder than the other parties:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2641022
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,200
    edited November 2015
    The Russian strategy seems logical. Treat all those armed against the governments forces as the enemy and attack them. The British and Americans by contrast want to bomb ISIS while the 'good' Jihadists do the work of defeating ISIS and the government forces on the ground.

    It seems that not only is the loyalty of these groups a movable feast but those being supplied with arms are regularly changing sides and selling their arms to ISIS. What's more the most effective opposition to ISIS on the ground is coming from Iranian militias and Hezbollah both at least as antagonistic to US/British interests as ISIS.

    I'm starting to think Corbyn has it right. As the Until Cameron can decide on a desirable outcome dropping bombs is not only ineffective but actually counter productive. As the Chinese saying goes "to those without a destination no wind is favourable".
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,536
    Surely Corbyn WANTS a split with his MPs.

    He'll WANT MPs to vote for military action - to provoke an even bigger split and thus provide ammunition for deselections.
  • On topic, sort of - at least on thread, British involvement in Syria will allow the RAF to use its Brimstone missiles to target and kill key ISIS individuals supported, where necessary, by "Kurds" (otherwise known as British special forces in Kurdish uniforms)

    It will greatly disrupt and weaken ISISs command and control infrastructure, which is worth doing.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    Roger said:

    I'm starting to think Corbyn has it right.

    Rogerdamus has spoken. Cameron's case is secure.

    :smile:

  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    btw @JackW and @Richard_Nabavi

    I accept people can have different views on the best thing to do here, I am just wary of going to war, prob bit of a pacifist, untrendy as that may be
  • eekeek Posts: 1,995
    JackW said:

    Dixie said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    Off topic, as the font of all knowledge, can Labour really lose Oldham? I can't quite believe it.
    I think it possible but still not probable.

    Two factors have to collide to ensure a UKIP gain. Firstly, Labour need to implode further and overwhelmingly in public in the coming week to the extent that core Labour voters in Oldham West would rather actively abstain or vote UKIP.

    Secondly the UKIP by-election ground game has to reach the level of potency that was once formerly enjoyed by the LibDems.

    The former is certainly possible but the latter appears rather less likely.

    Given that the Labour Candidate is a local lad who has led the council I think (as I have done since he was nominated) that it will be a labour win albeit far tighter than it should be.

    I also think if the Labour Candidate had been any of the other options Labour wouldn't have a chance.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922

    (snip)

    And those can be argued the other way as well.

    E.g.: "totally and self-confessedly partial and one sided"

    You link to RT twice. Enough said. I mean, really. I expect even you are embarrassed by that. Do you trust the information on RT wrt Syria?

    "Not cross-checked"

    You are quoting RT. I repeat my question above. And I like the way you seem to think a Syrian might not have lots of friends in Syria. Besides, how do you expect to get 'cross-checked' data out of a warzone? One side claims one thing, another the opposite. If anything, organisations like SOHR or HRW are more likely to get closer to the truth than combatant governments and their controlled media organisations.

    "Not a professional outfit."

    Neither are many of your sources, e.g. a woman living in Australia who you lauded and linked because she agreed with your view. Besides, you have yet to answer the question I posed earlier: what is a professional outfit' on t'Internet?

    "-totally and self-confessedly partial and one sided"

    So are most of your links. It's just that you choose not to believe - or are deluded enough - to think that they are not partial and one-sided. This particularly applies to RT.

    *****

    In these, you are making my point for me. You *want* to believe, and support anything that backs up your tiny world view using bogus arguments. They make you feel good, even when you reject them totally in other cases. But they can easily be argued the other way.

    You fail your own tests.

    So tell me this: what sort of evidence against Assad would you accept? It's damned-near impossible for anyone to jump the hurdles that you have placed, and the way you apply them. If they're on the ground and anti-regime, then they're one-sided. If they're reports from individuals they're not cross-checked and not professional outfits.

    Yet you salivate over RT. If you have any intellect or morals, you would disregard RT on anything to do with in these matters.

    I remember you even argued said HRW should be ignored because they are biased.

    They are biased, but so are you, to a much larger and more dangerous degree.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    MikeL said:

    Surely Corbyn WANTS a split with his MPs.

    He'll WANT MPs to vote for military action - to provoke an even bigger split and thus provide ammunition for deselections.

    It gives the members an excuse to act.

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    They would get the opportunity to buy the property at a lower price without BTL distortion of the market.

    The only opportunity they get is to compete for a house with every one else who is seeking to buy, and that opportunity itself relies on their capacity to raise a deposit and secure funding from a lender.

    If they can't do that, all that has happened is a reduction in the supply of housing that they can reasonably get.
    As I said, a transition from BTL to its elimination through tax is, and must be, a gradual process with incremental tax increases and it must also go hand in glove with a significant increase in social housing development and a regulated private rental sector which would both be except from rental tax.

    Malcolm's tenant might not move for most of the implementation period, depending on the finances of Malcolms situation, he may never feel the need to stop renting the property.

    But some would, so more and more housing as the years progress would enter the OO market, the tenant may be able to buy one of those properties. Or, as others undoubtedly WOULD be able to buy, he would find other private rental opportunities or one of the new Housing Association properties or one of the new exempted, regulated for profit rental companies properties.

    Social Housing builds have dropped from an average of 200,000 per year from 1949 to 1979 to less than 50,000 per year since 1980. In addition, you need to add Demolitions of social housing. This year Glasgow alone demolished over 2000 social housing units. And built virtually none.

    No more private rentals, no more OOs, 2000 less social housing stock. In one year,.

    The private sector has utterly failed to provide sufficient housing over the period since 1980 despite being given carte blanche by government. The cheapest credit in history, the most favourable planning laws since the war, the most profitable environment ever for housebuilding. But it has failed and to continue something that has failed for 30 years would be utter madness,.
  • eekeek Posts: 1,995
    edited November 2015
    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
    Downside is that as demand for BTL property falls, supply of BTL property will also fall potentially resulting in higher rents as supploy no longer matches demand in the rental market. That would increase rents which would increase demand for BTL property as yields improve.

    The end result if you are not careful and don't rapidly ensure more supply is created could simply be both rental and purchase prices increasing.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    On topic, sort of - at least on thread, British involvement in Syria will allow the RAF to use its Brimstone missiles to target and kill key ISIS individuals supported, where necessary, by "Kurds" (otherwise known as British special forces in Kurdish uniforms)

    It will greatly disrupt and weaken ISISs command and control infrastructure, which is worth doing.

    Just so. We need to break up IS and the longer we leave it the harder it will be.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    isam said:

    btw @JackW and @Richard_Nabavi

    I accept people can have different views on the best thing to do here, I am just wary of going to war, prob bit of a pacifist, untrendy as that may be

    Being a pacifist is a perfectly honourable position to hold. Some of the bravest individuals in WWI and II were so.

    However there are times when the basest of evil must be confronted and destroyed even to the extent that some innocents are lost.

    The world is at times very harsh, and unsparing in its cruelty. The best we might achieve at times is the least worst option.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    eek said:

    JackW said:

    Dixie said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    Off topic, as the font of all knowledge, can Labour really lose Oldham? I can't quite believe it.
    I think it possible but still not probable.

    Two factors have to collide to ensure a UKIP gain. Firstly, Labour need to implode further and overwhelmingly in public in the coming week to the extent that core Labour voters in Oldham West would rather actively abstain or vote UKIP.

    Secondly the UKIP by-election ground game has to reach the level of potency that was once formerly enjoyed by the LibDems.

    The former is certainly possible but the latter appears rather less likely.

    Given that the Labour Candidate is a local lad who has led the council I think (as I have done since he was nominated) that it will be a labour win albeit far tighter than it should be.

    I also think if the Labour Candidate had been any of the other options Labour wouldn't have a chance.
    Valid points.

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
    Downside is that as demand for BTL property falls, supply of BTL property will also fall potentially resulting in higher rents as supploy no longer matches demand in the rental market. That would increase rents which would increase demand for BTL property as yields improve.

    The end result if you are not careful and don't rapidly ensure more supply is created could simply be both rental and purchase prices increasing.
    That's speculative nonsense. The most likely outcome - if nothing else changed and obviously other things SHOULD change - is that the market would move from competition between OO and BTL to just competition between OO.

    The key here is that, in general, the budget available to OOs is lower than that available to BTL due to market distortions created by tax free Rental incomes for BTL buyers.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,459

    Looks at watch...thinks...hold on have Labour managed to get through the day with a monumental f##k up?

    I mean we know they are split over Syria, that McMao green room story was contradicted, but no hug a Jahadi, no tickle a suicide bomber with a feather duster, no quoting from the words of wisdom of a mass murder? Must go down a successful day, no?

    An early candidate for Post of the Year...
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited November 2015
    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    In Britain? Must've missed them sorry
    I hadn't realised terrorist attacks on British citizens only counts within the United Kingdom.

    The families of beheaded Britons and those massacred in Tunisia among others will be pleased to note their loss is peripheral.

    Does the government have to wait for a Paris like outrage in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to take action?

    I dare say attacks have already been attempted and foiled in Britain (nice way of pointing out
    I utterly disagree with your second paragraph

    ISIS are a fundamental attack on liberal democracy and all that we hold dear and cherish in our nation. Closing mosques and banning the burqas is an attack on our way of life from within - a spectacular own goal of epic proportions.

    Utterly agree to utterly disagree.. I prefer it to bombing, and the death of innocent civilians that incurs
    Do you think banning the burqa or closing mosques will deter ISIS from attacking UK citizens and interests?

    Innocent British citizens have already been murdered. How many UK casualties would you have us suffer before we took further military action against ISIS?

    How many Paris like outrages must we endure?

    I don't necessarily agree bombing ISIS will prevent terrorist outrages.. it may well provoke them

    Closing mosques and banning burqas may weed out the fundamentalists, and in the long run their influence is the biggest danger to the way of life you mentioned previously
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    It seems ISIS have said we're a target anyway, along with Washington, Rome and elsewhere. The inevitability is in the fact they're going to try. This is not about Syria, or Iraq, or Afghanistan: it's about a conflict between their world view and ours. We could leave the ME to fester and they'd still come after us.

    Besides, they've already tried. Not just on VJ day, but, if I heard Cameron correctly earlier, a foiled plot in the last month (3 weeks?)

    We can only hope they're incompetent, or the authorities get a handle on their plots, as they have in the past.

    There's an interesting article in the latest LRB on ISIS. I don't agree with all of it, but it's thought-provoking nonetheless. It's worth a read IMO, but expect to disagree with it in places.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n23/adam-shatz/magical-thinking-about-isis
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,200
    edited November 2015
    Penny Mordaunt being interviewed on Ch4 News is floundering but not because she's no good but because the government's case just doesn't stand up. It's just preposterous and John Snow is really trying to be kind.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,315

    Honestly there's no point doing PB threads in advance any more.

    Every day there's a new Corbyn clusterfuck that renders your piece redundant.

    Perhaps you should just have a template set up into which you can insert the latest.

    (But please get a different picture - I'm fed up with that jacket!)
    I was planning to use this one on Sunday

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUwXWm8XIAAZX28.jpg
    What on earth was Diane doing to him at the time? Not so much mind bleach as as a full brainectomy(TM) required.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    It seems ISIS have said we're a target anyway, along with Washington, Rome and elsewhere. The inevitability is in the fact they're going to try. This is not about Syria, or Iraq, or Afghanistan: it's about a conflict between their world view and ours. We could leave the ME to fester and they'd still come after us.

    Besides, they've already tried. Not just on VJ day, but, if I heard Cameron correctly earlier, a foiled plot in the last month (3 weeks?)

    We can only hope they're incompetent, or the authorities get a handle on their plots, as they have in the past.

    There's an interesting article in the latest LRB on ISIS. I don't agree with all of it, but it's thought-provoking nonetheless. It's worth a read IMO, but expect to disagree with it in places.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n23/adam-shatz/magical-thinking-about-isis
    Really what I am saying is that the terrorists that will attack us are probably not in Syria but in East London, Luton, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester or Birmingham (sounds like Panic by The Smiths). I think in the long term that is the bigger problem
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,459
    @iainmartin1: Even a key Corbyn ally - Diane "we'll think about Syria over the weekend" Abbott - is putting Corbyn on notice... https://t.co/yZPoVx0urP
  • malcolmg said:

    I don't hold out huge hopes for the ability of air-strikes to materially degrade ISIS. But I can see a scenario where there is good intelligence that their senior commanders are meeting to plan a campaign of violence. In those circumstances, I would want our planes available to take them out. We shouldn't just rely on others to take on that role.

    I doubt our two planes will make much difference
    You are confusingnthe RAF with the Scottish Airforce
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,609
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
    Downside is that as demand for BTL property falls, supply of BTL property will also fall potentially resulting in higher rents as supploy no longer matches demand in the rental market. That would increase rents which would increase demand for BTL property as yields improve.

    The end result if you are not careful and don't rapidly ensure more supply is created could simply be both rental and purchase prices increasing.
    For your analysis to work, the BTL property would need to be taken out of the market, which it won't be - it will be sold to an O/O instead.

    Fundamentally, though, all this really does is result in a 3% reduction in purchase prices and a slight shift of the balance towards O/O.

    It's not a big deal.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,620

    Who decides if its a free vote - the leader, or the Shadow Cabinet?

    Stop the war coalition?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
    Downside is that as demand for BTL property falls, supply of BTL property will also fall potentially resulting in higher rents as supploy no longer matches demand in the rental market. That would increase rents which would increase demand for BTL property as yields improve.

    The end result if you are not careful and don't rapidly ensure more supply is created could simply be both rental and purchase prices increasing.
    For your analysis to work, the BTL property would need to be taken out of the market, which it won't be - it will be sold to an O/O instead.

    Fundamentally, though, all this really does is result in a 3% reduction in purchase prices and a slight shift of the balance towards O/O.

    It's not a big deal.
    Indeed it's not.

    But it should be made a bigger deal, and turned into VAT on Rental Incomes which only applies to BTL landlords (i.e. exemptions for HAs, and regulated for profit businesses).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922
    isam said:

    I don't nevessarily agree bombing ISIS will prevent terrorist outrages.. it may well provoke them

    Closing mosques and banning burqas may weed out the fundamentalists, and in the long run their influence is the biggest danger to the way of life you mentioned previously

    I don't agree with closing mosques per se (all you will do then is move the aggrieved into meeting in private places), but certainly there needs to be very close monitoring of who preaches and what they preach. That might already be being done, and might also be quite difficult. In extreme cases, closures of individual ones might be warranted.

    Besides, it seems a large amount of radicalisation is going on not in mosques, but on t'Internet. That may be more where the challenge lies, and I can't see a practical answer to it. It;s not as if trying to criminalise possession of the Anarchists Cookbook has stopped terrorism.

    I fail to see how banning burqas will do anything to stop terrorism, and will only alienate. And before anyone asks, I find them distasteful.

    We need to say to Muslims: if you obey our laws and general way of life, you can practice your religion freely.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,125
    The latest news from the Aravindan Balakrishnan trial:

    "A communist accused of presiding over a cult in London has told a court he can "initiate" an "electronic satellite warfare machine" called Jackie.

    Aravindan Balakrishnan, 75, denies charges including rape, indecent assault, false imprisonment and child cruelty. He told Southwark Crown Court that 'Jackie' was invisible, but had been built by the Communist Party of China. "It can pull your head out from your body," he said."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34930772
  • Scott_P said:

    @iainmartin1: Even a key Corbyn ally - Diane "we'll think about Syria over the weekend" Abbott - is putting Corbyn on notice... https://t.co/yZPoVx0urP

    It's come to something when we're anyalsing the musings of Diane Abbott to determine the strength of the Labour leadership.

    I think Corbyn will have to allow a free vote. If he does not, there is a strong chance that HM Opposition cannot put together a shadow cabinet. Where does that leave them?
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    Harry Kane is paying my mortgage
  • eekeek Posts: 1,995
    edited November 2015
    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
    Downside is that as demand for BTL property falls, supply of BTL property will also fall potentially resulting in higher rents as supploy no longer matches demand in the rental market. That would increase rents which would increase demand for BTL property as yields improve.

    The end result if you are not careful and don't rapidly ensure more supply is created could simply be both rental and purchase prices increasing.
    For your analysis to work, the BTL property would need to be taken out of the market, which it won't be - it will be sold to an O/O instead.

    Fundamentally, though, all this really does is result in a 3% reduction in purchase prices and a slight shift of the balance towards O/O.

    It's not a big deal.
    The 3% change is not a big deal (as someone pointed out the impact on most yields in minuscule).

    However the assumption you make is that there is a 1:1 relationship between renters and owner occupiers which I don't believe to be the case.

    It's a minor issue really though when the real problem is lack of supply due to decades of not enough houses being built.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,989

    If he does not, there is a strong chance that HM Opposition cannot put together a shadow cabinet. Where does that leave them?

    In opposition.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,315
    Dair said:

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    They would get the opportunity to buy the property at a lower price without BTL distortion of the market.

    The only opportunity they get is to compete for a house with every one else who is seeking to buy, and that opportunity itself relies on their capacity to raise a deposit and secure funding from a lender.

    If they can't do that, all that has happened is a reduction in the supply of housing that they can reasonably get.
    As I said, a transition from BTL to its elimination through tax is, and must be, a gradual process with incremental tax increases and it must also go hand in glove with a significant increase in social housing development and a regulated private rental sector which would both be except from rental tax.

    Malcolm's tenant might not move for most of the implementation period, depending on the finances of Malcolms situation, he may never feel the need to stop renting the property.

    But some would, so more and more housing as the years progress would enter the OO market, the tenant may be able to buy one of those properties. Or, as others undoubtedly WOULD be able to buy, he would find other private rental opportunities or one of the new Housing Association properties or one of the new exempted, regulated for profit rental companies properties.

    Social Housing builds have dropped from an average of 200,000 per year from 1949 to 1979 to less than 50,000 per year since 1980. In addition, you need to add Demolitions of social housing. This year Glasgow alone demolished over 2000 social housing units. And built virtually none.

    No more private rentals, no more OOs, 2000 less social housing stock. In one year,.

    The private sector has utterly failed to provide sufficient housing over the period since 1980 despite being given carte blanche by government. The cheapest credit in history, the most favourable planning laws since the war, the most profitable environment ever for housebuilding. But it has failed and to continue something that has failed for 30 years would be utter madness,.
    Fleet Admiral Dair
    Air Marshall Dair
    Professor Dair (Economics)
    Professor Dair (Sociology)
    Professor Dair (Geopolitics)
    Investment Banker Dair

    A polymath indeed.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,620

    dr_spyn said:

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges now4 seconds ago
    Jeremy Corbyn meets shadow cabinet. Tells them they must take time to consider issue. He then issues statement to press behind their backs.

    Corbyn certainly knows how to demoralise and humiliate his troops – in a nice way of course.
    "a new kind of politics" innit
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,553
    isam said:

    Harry Kane is paying my mortgage

    You have no shame.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The social housing allocation model does not work. It is inflexible and does not adapt to changing household circumstances.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,991
    Interesting tweet from Robert Harris suggesting Jeremy Corbyn might use the split in the Shadow Cabinet over Syria to resign from a job he didn't want anyway.It seems that crunchtime is coming one way or the other,the other option being JC sacking most of the Shadow Cabinet or Hilary Benn at the very least.The problem with that it is there are too few JC supporters in the PLP to make up the numbers of a new Shadow Cabinet.
    So,another look at the next Labour leader market is required from a very short-term viewpoint-I'm on Keir Starmer at 16-1 for what I had assumed would be a longer-term position.The 2 candidates with the necessary experience that stand out as what would be "Unity" candidates and could appeal to the wider Labour party are the obvious one Tom Watson at 8-1 2nd fav but there just might be a bit of value in Angela Eagle at 40-1 with Paddy Power.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,804
    Anorak said:

    Dair said:

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    They would get the opportunity to buy the property at a lower price without BTL distortion of the market.

    The only opportunity they get is to compete for a house with every one else who is seeking to buy, and that opportunity itself relies on their capacity to raise a deposit and secure funding from a lender.

    If they can't do that, all that has happened is a reduction in the supply of housing that they can reasonably get.
    As I said, a transition from BTL to its elimination through tax is, and must be, a gradual process with incremental tax increases and it must also go hand in glove with a significant increase in social housing development and a regulated private rental sector which would both be except from rental tax.

    Malcolm's tenant might not move for most of the implementation period, depending on the finances of Malcolms situation, he may never feel the need to stop renting the property.

    But some would, so more and more housing as the years progress would enter the OO market, the tenant may be able to buy one of those properties. Or, as others undoubtedly WOULD be able to buy, he would find other private rental opportunities or one of the new Housing Association properties or one of the new exempted, regulated for profit rental companies properties.

    Social Housing builds have dropped from an average of 200,000 per year from 1949 to 1979 to less than 50,000 per year since 1980. In addition, you need to add Demolitions of social housing. This year Glasgow alone demolished over 2000 social housing units. And built virtually none.

    No more private rentals, no more OOs, 2000 less social housing stock. In one year,.

    The private sector has utterly failed to provide sufficient housing over the period since 1980 despite being given carte blanche by government. The cheapest credit in history, the most favourable planning laws since the war, the most profitable environment ever for housebuilding. But it has failed and to continue something that has failed for 30 years would be utter madness,.
    Fleet Admiral Dair
    Air Marshall Dair
    Professor Dair (Economics)
    Professor Dair (Sociology)
    Professor Dair (Geopolitics)
    Investment Banker Dair

    A polymath indeed.
    who Dairs whines
  • Very interesting insight into Osborne's (and the Government's) thinking by the very well informed James Forsyth:

    "(Osborne) believes falling levels of home ownership and spiralling house prices are one of the biggest obstacles to creating a new-centre-right majority in Britain. He is far less concerned than Cameron about the effect that major house-building will have on the landscape.

    Another area where Osborne is determined to keep putting in extra resources is the health service. He believes it was Cameron’s NHS commitment that was the most important and electorally significant element of Tory modernisation. The tensions between 10 and 11 Downing Street and Jeremy Hunt in recent weeks have been borne out of frustration that, despite the cash that the Tories are pumping in, they are still regularly waking up to headlines about the NHS being in crisis.

    This spending review was made harder by the fact that most of the obvious cuts were made last time round. But it was made easier by the absence of Liberal Democrats: Nick Clegg had no veto. Some ministers have also remained enthusiasts for reducing spending even though they now run departments. I understand that both the Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, and the Environment Secretary, Liz Truss, had some of their proposed cuts knocked back by the Treasury. Indeed, the extent to which Osborne has tried to protect elements of the government’s ‘industrial strategy’ from sweeping cuts to the Department for Business shows how much he has changed in office. His politics now owe more to Michael Heseltine than Nigel Lawson."

    https://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-spending-cuts-george-osborne-flatly-refused-to-make/
  • eek said:

    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Cyclefree

    An OTR natter sounds fun... I will even buy you lunch ;)

    FPT @Sean_F

    BTL's not a bad thing per se.

    But the challenge is that, with low interest rates, yield hungry investors, tax-offsets and the availability of debt financing, BTL demand has been a significant component in driving house prices beyond the reach of the younger generation.

    It all comes down to house prices being too high and how to bring them down without busting the banks

    The biggest driver is an ever growing population, and not enough new builds. Supply and Demand. Changing the ownership of a flat will have no effect on the number of vacant properties, since the present occupier will still need a roof over their head.

    BTL's are an all too easily blamed bogeyman, a distraction from the real problem.
    Short sentences. Easy words. It may help you.

    Prices depend on supply and demand.

    BTL is a significant source of demand for house.

    Reduce BTL demand and you reduce house prices.

    Got it now?
    Downside is that as demand for BTL property falls, supply of BTL property will also fall potentially resulting in higher rents as supploy no longer matches demand in the rental market. That would increase rents which would increase demand for BTL property as yields improve.

    The end result if you are not careful and don't rapidly ensure more supply is created could simply be both rental and purchase prices increasing.
    Demand always equals supply: every sale involves one house being sold and one house being bought. Price is the balancing factor, and it's price which a tax rise like this is targeting.

    In a market like housing, the price is determined by the maximum the buyer is prepared to pay, rather than the minimum the seller is prepared to accept.

    Tax the buyer three percent, and the effect is the same number of people want to buy a house at £97,100 as previously wanted to deal at £100,000.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,620
    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    JackW said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Or will it? Everyone's an expert here it seems.. how will bombing Syria make people in the UK safer?

    I'd rather close down mosques in London and arrest the people on Mondays Dispatches

    The attacks on us and our closest allies are being planned from Syria, with personnel trained in Syria, recruiting terrorists with video nasties filmed in Syria, using finance gathered in Syria, all coordinated by leaders in Syria.

    The idea that we can simply ignore this, and let them get on with it as they establish more territorial control and get more and more powerful, is out with the fairies, frankly.

    As for your second point, it's not an either/or - we need to do a lot here as well, of course.
    Do you think the inevitable terrorist attack when we start bombing will be for the long term good in a utilitarian way?
    I think you'll find ISIS have already undertaken terrorist attacks on British citizens.

    In Britain? Must've missed them sorry
    I hadn't realised terrorist attacks on British citizens only counts within the United Kingdom.

    The families of beheaded Britons and those massacred in Tunisia among others will be pleased to note their loss is peripheral.

    Does the government have to wait for a Paris like outrage in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to take action?

    I dare say attacks have already been attempted and foiled in Britain (nice way of pointing out four cities in different British countries there btw-punchy, really illustrated the point) so I wouldn't say the desire for bombing was more or less immediate if one succeeded.

    But the main danger we have is from a small proportion of British Muslims.. Dispatches on Monday showed what's going on in East London and online. Temporarily closing mosques, banning Burqas, whatever it takes to reduce the number of radical islamists might be a better idea than bombing the middle east again
    I hear you Isam but taking either of the courses of action you suggest would be used as a rallying cry for attacks.

    WE literally cannot please these people unless we accept dhimmi status.

    is it worth that to keep us "safe"?

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2015
    Just got £50 on at 1000/1 on Paul Ryan getting the GOP NOM.

    It's not going to happen. But it's not quite 0% either.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,459

    I think Corbyn will have to allow a free vote. If he does not, there is a strong chance that HM Opposition cannot put together a shadow cabinet. Where does that leave them?

    Free vote not enough. Shadow Cabinet want whipped in favour, which Corbyn would then defy
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922
    isam said:

    Really what I am saying is that the terrorists that will attack us are probably not in Syria but in East London, Luton, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester or Birmingham (sounds like Panic by The Smiths). I think in the long term that is the bigger problem

    And that is one of my problems with the proposed bombing. IS is an ideology that is present in many countries. In Syria, Iraq and Yemen it is threatening the state. If we were to cut it out of those three countries then the cancer will still live elsewhere. They will still be organising on t'Internet.

    Having said that, it is necessary to remove their state-like apparatus from these countries, for those structures are spreading the cancer (*). But even with them removed, the ideology will live and perhaps thrive without it.

    So as well as the bombing, if we do it, we need to tackle the ideology, and one thread of that involves getting moderate Muslims onside and not alienate them. We need to try to mitigate the Sunni-Shia divide. And we need to promote why our system and way of life is better.

    We also need to ask ourselves why 'normal' men and women go from being westernised to moving to Syria. Why non-Muslims convert and do the same, sometimes within a matter of months.

    Basically, I have no easy answers to what is a massively complex and multi-dimensional problem. But one thing I will say: we should not assume IS are stupid. Whilst I disagree with them on almost everything, they will use anything we do against us. They are more adaptable than us because our system is better.

    (*) Although I am unsure how bombing will do that, given IS formed in Iraq during the American presence there. If they could not remove it, how can bombing?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,459
    @rosschawkins: Diane Abbott on C4: The shadow cabinet doesn't appoint the leader, the leader appoints the shadow cabinet

    There is a serious question, if Corbyn can't find enough MPs to fill a cabinet, what happens?
  • Scott_P said:

    @rosschawkins: Diane Abbott on C4: The shadow cabinet doesn't appoint the leader, the leader appoints the shadow cabinet

    There is a serious question, if Corbyn can't find enough MPs to fill a cabinet, what happens?

    In normal politics I'd suggest that makes the leadership simply untenable. In the new politics, who knows? Diane and John shadowing 6 portfolios each?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,125
    UKIP in Oldham West must be wondering what their next present from Labour will be.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Scott_P said:

    @rosschawkins: Diane Abbott on C4: The shadow cabinet doesn't appoint the leader, the leader appoints the shadow cabinet

    There is a serious question, if Corbyn can't find enough MPs to fill a cabinet, what happens?

    Was wondering the same thing?

    Is there any real requirement to have a shadow cabinet? Can Corbyn declare the whole idea obsolete and "old politics"?

    If Labour didn't appoint shadows would the SNP argue that its spokespeople should be called first to reply to ministerial statements?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,620
    AndyJS said:

    UKIP in Oldham West must be wondering what their next present from Labour will be.

    What was that someone said earlier in the thread about this being a good day for Labour


    LMAO
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,200
    OT. Mark Rylance is a deceptively fine actor who has that very rare gift of commanding the screen while seeming to do very little. The good British actors seem to be much in demand in American blockbusters at the moment. The film itself-Bridge of Spies-should appeal to the PB commentariat. Lavish and expensive but quite nerdish and old fashioned at the same time.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    chestnut said:

    MikeL said:

    Surely Corbyn WANTS a split with his MPs.

    He'll WANT MPs to vote for military action - to provoke an even bigger split and thus provide ammunition for deselections.

    It gives the members an excuse to act.

    Indeed, I was in favour of military action after the UN resolution passed, however I reverted to my previous position of being against after the Russia-Turkey flareup, which is still going on:

    Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 7h7 hours ago
    VIDEO: Russian air strikes hitting a convoy on the #Turkey/#Syria border for the second day in a row - @sakirkhader

    Syria is too much of a [email protected] to go in, thus I no longer doubt Corbyn on this, he's right.

    We should concentrate our efforts on the other half of ISIS which is in Iraq, Mosul is by far the largest city under ISIS control and would earn us brownie points with the Kurds and the Iraqis by pushing ISIS back from there.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,459
    @GeorgeTrefgarne: Dear enemies of freedom and democracy everywhere, the Labour party is discussing what to do about you over the weekend. So there.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922

    Interesting tweet from Robert Harris suggesting Jeremy Corbyn might use the split in the Shadow Cabinet over Syria to resign from a job he didn't want anyway.It seems that crunchtime is coming one way or the other,the other option being JC sacking most of the Shadow Cabinet or Hilary Benn at the very least.The problem with that it is there are too few JC supporters in the PLP to make up the numbers of a new Shadow Cabinet.
    So,another look at the next Labour leader market is required from a very short-term viewpoint-I'm on Keir Starmer at 16-1 for what I had assumed would be a longer-term position.The 2 candidates with the necessary experience that stand out as what would be "Unity" candidates and could appeal to the wider Labour party are the obvious one Tom Watson at 8-1 2nd fav but there just might be a bit of value in Angela Eagle at 40-1 with Paddy Power.

    I was really expecting the rest of the year after May to be boring, politics-wise. How wrong I was.

    If anything it's more exciting than before the election. At least we don't need the artificial drugs of nightly polls to get us high. Labour's antics are providing all the natural excitement us politics geeks can handle!
This discussion has been closed.