Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories who want TMay out well before the general election are

124»

Comments

  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    Biggest progress recently being good old free markt China.

    Yes, compare it now to when it was under Mao
    Yes, and? Is China today your free market ideal? Too far for me comrade.

    China's process of industrialisation in the 20th century killed as many peasants as our industrialisation killed Indian peasants in the 19th. Many here would say te latter was worth it because of the gains which ultimately followed (and did in the last thread). Is the logic different for Communist Party China?
    No of course not, Switzerland would be far better for most.

    It was Mao who made the 'Great Leap Forward' so brutal
    If only every country could simply choose to be Switzerland rather than choosing to be Sudan or something. But really: the bulk of the poverty reduction over the last few decades has been in China, so how is that attributable to free market capitalism?
    It was Deng Xiaoping /cn.html
    Again, and? China under Deng up to today is still far too heavily state managed and guided to be called free market capitalism with a straight face.
    I never said it was, just the shift from the communism of Mao to the more market orientated economy of today brought wealth creation with it
    So is the 'free market' responsible or not for the global reduction in poverty, the bulk of which has been under the stewardship of the CCP? Shall we put China in the 'market' box now while we're talking about poverty reduction, and retroactively put it in the 'Communist state' box if and when the regime collapses?
    Of course because it Mao
    CCP philosophy I gather is that economic security is the first freedom, without which others are unreal for most. But for the last time: it's bizarre how you want to claim Deng China's record for the 'free market'. It's no such thing, state and the market are 'enmeshed' they call it, a 'socialist market economy' very different from a free market one.
    For the last time that is also rather different than the entirely socialist economy under Mao
    That's just a dodge. Your original claim was about the 'free market' being responsible for raising people out of poverty, when the bulk of this progress has been in China's 'socialist market' economy. If your criteria for 'free market' is 'anything more market-oriented than Mao' then you hardly have anything to worry about re: Corbyn.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    rkrkrk said:



    The referendum was the 8th June and by the 30th June 2016 it was 1.34 - today it is 1.34 and expected to rise so 6% initial fall and as of today still 1.34

    Think you have your dates mixed up
    Getting old - quite right 8th June 2016 was my daughters 45th birthday
    I had to be reminded twice today that Friday is tomorrow.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    I detect the silvery Tay at last. Thanks for the chat. It's helped.
  • rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:



    The referendum was the 8th June and by the 30th June 2016 it was 1.34 - today it is 1.34 and expected to rise so 6% initial fall and as of today still 1.34

    Think you have your dates mixed up
    Getting old - quite right 8th June 2016 was my daughters 45th birthday
    I had to be reminded twice today that Friday is tomorrow.
    I know the feeling and the problem is my wife is the same
  • Interesting report on Sky that the balance of trade figures for EU and non-EU exports are significantly distorted by gold flows which mean that non-EU goods exports are overstated.
  • Interesting report on Sky that the balance of trade figures for EU and non-EU exports are significantly distorted by gold flows which mean that non-EU goods exports are overstated.

    You know William you have a set attitude pro EU and I respect that but both remainers and leavers posts are becoming tedious. Will someone just get on and sort it
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    God don't get me started. Biblical mispricing of assets. Property, which has screwed the young and bonds (so pensions) that's (less visibly) screwed the old.

    Put them up and house prices fall. Bad for the few good for the many (to adapt a phrase)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Danny565 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    glw said:

    Pulpstar said:

    free-market economics – has established a system where eight people own as much wealth as half the planet

    May thinks its our greatest ever achievement

    How is that there Venezuela coming along ?
    *cough* "That's not true socialism/communism."

    I believe that's the standard answer when someone points out the 100% failure record.
    It will be quite an interesting experiment though, to introduce it in this country, where everyone is accustomed to instant responses.

    In the days of the old telephone company or water board or gas board or whatever, you reported a fault or made a request for service, and 3 - 6 months later you were still waiting.

    (edit: remove a 't' - not 'experiment thought' , but 'experiment though'.)
    LOL, when was the last time you tried to get a utility company to resolve a problem? Do you really think it's any different these days.

    Nationalisation certainly isn't perfect, but atleast with that there's the opportunity to affect the running of utilities with our votes at the ballot box - as opposed to now, where the completely unaccountable people who run these cartels face no pressure, and therefore have no incentives to offer a better service
    What total rubbish! In a short call before I went on holiday my gas/electricity provider suggested a new fixed term deal saving me hundreds of pounds pa and the whole thing was quickly and efficiently organised.
    In the old days it was British Gas and that was it.

    And if the deal they offered was no good I had real alternatives. My vote or my parents' in an election once every 5 years made sod all difference to how a nationalised industry treated us.

    Service improved dramatically once we had a choice. Corbyn wants to take that choice away from us. A nationalised industry will answer to its masters - politicians - not us.

    There is plenty to be done to make utilities more responsive to consumers. But Corbyn's policies won't achieve that.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Quite pitiful that they still publish a front page. When did they stop printing it again?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    Biggest progress recently being good old free markt China.

    Yes, compare it now to when it was under Mao
    Yes, and? Is China today your free market ideal? Too far for me comrade.

    China's process of industrialisation in the 20th century killed as many peasants as our industrialisation killed Indian peasants in the 19th. Many here would say te latter was worth it because of the gains which ultimately followed (and did in the last thread). Is the logic different for Communist Party China?
    No of course not, Switzerland would be far better for most.

    It was Mao who made the 'Great Leap Forward' so brutal
    If only every country could simply choose to be Switzerland rather than choosing to be Sudan or something. But really: the bulk of the poverty reduction over the last few decades has been in China, so how is that attributable to free market capitalism?
    It was Deng Xiaoping /cn.html
    Again, and? China under Deng up to today is still far too heavily state managed and guided to be called free market capitalism with a straight face.
    I never said it was, just the shift from the communism of Mao to the more market orientated economy of today brought wealth creation with it
    So is the 'free regime collapses?
    Of course because it Mao
    CCP philosophy I gather is that economic security is the first freedom, without which others are unreal for most. But for the last time: it's bizarre how you want to claim Deng China's record for the 'free market'. It's no such thing, state and the market are 'enmeshed' they call it, a 'socialist market economy' very different from a free market one.
    For the last time that is also rather different than the entirely socialist economy under Mao
    That's just a dodge. Your original claim was about the 'free market' being responsible for raising people out of poverty, when the bulk of this progress has been in China's 'socialist market' economy. If your criteria for 'free market' is 'anything more market-oriented than Mao' then you hardly have anything to worry about re: Corbyn.
    No, the increased wealth only came when China ditched pure socialism in favour of more of the market economy. McDonnell of course is the guy who quoted from Mao's 'Little Red Book'
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,952
    Danny565 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    glw said:

    Pulpstar said:

    free-market economics – has established a system where eight people own as much wealth as half the planet

    May thinks its our greatest ever achievement

    How is that there Venezuela coming along ?
    *cough* "That's not true socialism/communism."

    I believe that's the standard answer when someone points out the 100% failure record.
    It will be quite an interesting experiment though, to introduce it in this country, where everyone is accustomed to instant responses.

    In the days of the old telephone company or water board or gas board or whatever, you reported a fault or made a request for service, and 3 - 6 months later you were still waiting.

    (edit: remove a 't' - not 'experiment thought' , but 'experiment though'.)
    LOL, when was the last time you tried to get a utility company to resolve a problem? Do you really think it's any different these days.

    Nationalisation certainly isn't perfect, but atleast with that there's the opportunity to affect the running of utilities with our votes at the ballot box - as opposed to now, where the completely unaccountable people who run these cartels face no pressure, and therefore have no incentives to offer a better service
    How does changing Govts. affect how we run public utilities - unless one is advocating re-privatisation?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited September 2017
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    Biggest progress recently being good old free markt China.

    Yes, compare it now to when it was under Mao
    ...
    No of course not, Switzerland would be far better for most.

    It was Mao who made the 'Great Leap Forward' so brutal
    If only every country could simply choose to be Switzerland rather than choosing to be Sudan or something. But really: the bulk of the poverty reduction over the last few decades has been in China, so how is that attributable to free market capitalism?
    It was Deng Xiaoping /cn.html
    Again, and? China under Deng up to today is still far too heavily state managed and guided to be called free market capitalism with a straight face.
    I never said it was, just the shift from the communism of Mao to the more market orientated economy of today brought wealth creation with it
    So is the 'free regime collapses?
    Of course because it Mao
    CCP philosophy I gather is that economic security is the first freedom, without which others are unreal for most. But for the last time: it's bizarre how you want to claim Deng China's record for the 'free market'. It's no such thing, state and the market are 'enmeshed' they call it, a 'socialist market economy' very different from a free market one.
    For the last time that is also rather different than the entirely socialist economy under Mao
    That's just a dodge. Your original claim was about the 'free market' being responsible for raising people out of poverty, when the bulk of this progress has been in China's 'socialist market' economy. If your criteria for 'free market' is 'anything more market-oriented than Mao' then you hardly have anything to worry about re: Corbyn.
    No, the increased wealth only came when China ditched pure socialism in favour of more of the market economy. McDonnell of course is the guy who quoted from Mao's 'Little Red Book'
    Ask anyone who has worked in China. From an economic POV, it makes Britain look socialist.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,840
    edited September 2017
    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
    What LTV is that on ?
  • SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    This is going to be an expensive lunch, if @TOPPING gets to choose the wines.

    I think we should let Ms Cyclefree choose the venue.

    amortised over, oh I don't know, 15 years which is probably when I (and others?) last had a comparable blow out it's positively a steal...
    Can good Muslim boys who don't drink alcohol attend this shindig?
    Like all these things I rather think that it will remain in the imagination rather than take place but I could be wrong (in which case the answer is yes of course!).
    JohnO and I recently had lunch and drinks in Searcys, it was immense fun.
    Mister Robert Smithson and I have recently taken to getting drunk on champers or - when he's feeling puritan - just slightly drunk on NZ Sauv Blanc - in the Groucho. It's also fun.
    I thought Smithson Jnr had relocated to the socialist republic of southern California?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Pulpstar said:

    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
    What LTV is that on ?
    https://www.money.co.uk/mortgages/10-year-fixed-rate-mortgages.htm
  • Pong said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
    BOE indicated rises this year and said it was a good sign
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited September 2017

    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
    BOE indicated rises this year and said it was a good sign
    If the lenders believed Carney they'd up their rates, surely?

    I don't see that happening.
  • Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
    What LTV is that on ?
    https://www.money.co.uk/mortgages/10-year-fixed-rate-mortgages.htm
    So for a £250,000 purchase you need a £100,000 deposit - not much help to the many
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
    If you are right it's a crap state of affairs. So many distortions are due to ultra low interest rates.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,840

    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
    What LTV is that on ?
    https://www.money.co.uk/mortgages/10-year-fixed-rate-mortgages.htm
    So for a £250,000 purchase you need a £100,000 deposit - not much help to the many
    Lol, not a million miles off my own finances that tbh ^^;
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2017
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    This is going to be an expensive lunch, if @TOPPING gets to choose the wines.

    I think we should let Ms Cyclefree choose the venue.

    amortised over, oh I don't know, 15 years which is probably when I (and others?) last had a comparable blow out it's positively a steal...
    Can good Muslim boys who don't drink alcohol attend this shindig?
    Like all these things I rather think that it will remain in the imagination rather than take place but I could be wrong (in which case the answer is yes of course!).
    JohnO and I recently had lunch and drinks in Searcys, it was immense fun.
    Mister Robert Smithson and I have recently taken to getting drunk on champers or - when he's feeling puritan - just slightly drunk on NZ Sauv Blanc - in the Groucho. It's also fun.
    I thought Smithson Jnr had relocated to the socialist republic of southern California?
    He flies back on his private jet JUST for the opportunity of sharing a New World White and a bowl of Twiglets with the author of THE BIBLE OF THE DEAD
    They serve twiglets at the Groucho....What is becoming of the world!
  • Pong said:

    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
    BOE indicated rises this year and said it was a good sign
    The lenders aren't buying it.
    I think you may find that lending criteria is going to tighten greatly over the coming months.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    SeanT said:



    I've been Long and Bullish on China for yonks, as old pb-ers will note. I predicted China would overtake the USA in GDP, on this site, when all i got was scornful laughter in return. They ain't laughing now,

    Interestingly, one of the main arguments my opponents presented was that China was just a nation of tin-bashing drones, incapable of innovation, stifling new companies and ideas, they only ever copied and stole, blah blah

    I pointed out, dutifully, that exactly the same accusations were levelled by Brits at industrialising Germany in the 1880s, and by the entire West at Japan in the 1950s and 60s.

    Singapore, likewise.

    Now read this, in the Economist:

    https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21729429-industries-and-consumers-around-world-will-soon-feel-their-impact-chinas-audacious-and

    China is actually OVERTAKING the USA in terms of enterprise and start-ups

    Anybody who told you China won't overtake the US in GDP has very little idea of growth in economics.

    Poor countries should grow faster and China has 4x the population. short of massive war it was inevitable.

    Similarly India will overtake the US at some point.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL Help to Buy stimulated demand without increasing supply. That sustains high prices which doesn't help anyone struggling to buy. It was a state funded ( via contingent liability ) attempt at keeping the housing boom going wrapped under a title about buyers.

    @HYFUD That is indeed a great line which I will also steal. We get the social policy we deserve.

    I'm sorry. Help to buy encouraged builders to build at a time when a mortgage famine and an insistence on larger deposits was killing demand. Housing developments were being spread over 5-6 years instead of 1-2 because house builders couldn't shift them. The policy helped and is something Tories and Lib Dems should be proud of, even if it was not enough.
    Interesting- I don't think I've heard much of a defence for this policy before... well other than... it helped me buy... which rather misses the point.
    I do agree with @YellowSubmarine that the Coalition could and should have done more. The consequences of ultra low interest rates have been invidious for all but the rich.
    An awful lot of the problems with the property market will resolve themselves once interest rates get off the floor.
    I'm not convinced interest rates are going anywhere for a very long time.

    Neither is the market - mortgage lenders will fix @2.5% for 10 years.
    I agree with this. Too much money sloshing around looking for ANY return.

    I'd be surprised if interest rates went above 2.5% in the next decade.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Pong said:

    If the lenders believed Carney they'd up their rates, surely?

    I don't see that happening.

    I'm not sure that what lenders are doing is a particularly trustworthy indication of what will happen.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,840
    Interest rates if they do rise will be slowish I think as the large price/wage ratios means that a lower % increase should stop the economy more than in the past...
    If I get the house I'm currently trying to buy I'm not planning on selling for another 40 years at least anyway.
  • Koeman getting the sack soon ??
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Doesn't really?
    His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SeanT said:



    ***Ask anyone who has worked in China. From an economic POV, it makes Britain look socialist.***

    You just have to GO to China to understand it. It's a land of pretty wild free market capitalism, with a meagre welfare safety net, with a strange overlay of government owned companies, many of which act just like aggressive US corporations - all of it inside a pious cocoon of theocratic communism in which no one believes.

    China is like a Mafia family business going diligently to church even as they bury dead enemies in the forest, build Las Vegas and Atlantic City, and make many billions from illicit heroin, to excellent and legitimate pizza parlours.

    And, Sean is absolutely correct!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    This is going to be an expensive lunch, if @TOPPING gets to choose the wines.

    I think we should let Ms Cyclefree choose the venue.

    amortised over, oh I don't know, 15 years which is probably when I (and others?) last had a comparable blow out it's positively a steal...
    Can good Muslim boys who don't drink alcohol attend this shindig?
    Like all these things I rather think that it will remain in the imagination rather than take place but I could be wrong (in which case the answer is yes of course!).
    JohnO and I recently had lunch and drinks in Searcys, it was immense fun.
    Mister Robert Smithson and I have recently taken to getting drunk on champers or - when he's feeling puritan - just slightly drunk on NZ Sauv Blanc - in the Groucho. It's also fun.
    I thought Smithson Jnr had relocated to the socialist republic of southern California?
    I'm back in the UK one week a month, although only to remind myself of how nice SoCal is by comparison.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,952
    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Or the NHS.....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Doesn't really?
    His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...
    It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

    A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Independence! For Northern Ireland. Is this not what the Scottish Government wanted with the legal opinion of the Advocate General ?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    SeanT said:

    rkrkrk said:

    SeanT said:



    I've been Long and Bullish on China for yonks, as old pb-ers will note. I predicted China would overtake the USA in GDP, on this site, when all i got was scornful laughter in return. They ain't laughing now,

    Interestingly, one of the main arguments my opponents presented was that China was just a nation of tin-bashing drones, incapable of innovation, stifling new companies and ideas, they only ever copied and stole, blah blah

    I pointed out, dutifully, that exactly the same accusations were levelled by Brits at industrialising Germany in the 1880s, and by the entire West at Japan in the 1950s and 60s.

    Singapore, likewise.

    Now read this, in the Economist:

    https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21729429-industries-and-consumers-around-world-will-soon-feel-their-impact-chinas-audacious-and

    China is actually OVERTAKING the USA in terms of enterprise and start-ups

    Anybody who told you China won't overtake the US in GDP has very little idea of growth in economics.

    Poor countries should grow faster and China has 4x the population. short of massive war it was inevitable.

    Similarly India will overtake the US at some point.
    Well then you should have been on this site 8 years ago, when my predictions and prognostications about China were roundly ridiculed.
    Eight years ago China was almost or already depending on measurement the second largest economy in the world. Amazing that people didn't think they would be #1 at some point.
  • rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    This is going to be an expensive lunch, if @TOPPING gets to choose the wines.

    I think we should let Ms Cyclefree choose the venue.

    amortised over, oh I don't know, 15 years which is probably when I (and others?) last had a comparable blow out it's positively a steal...
    Can good Muslim boys who don't drink alcohol attend this shindig?
    Like all these things I rather think that it will remain in the imagination rather than take place but I could be wrong (in which case the answer is yes of course!).
    JohnO and I recently had lunch and drinks in Searcys, it was immense fun.
    Mister Robert Smithson and I have recently taken to getting drunk on champers or - when he's feeling puritan - just slightly drunk on NZ Sauv Blanc - in the Groucho. It's also fun.
    I thought Smithson Jnr had relocated to the socialist republic of southern California?
    I'm back in the UK one week a month, although only to remind myself of how nice SoCal is by comparison.
    You can go off some people....Just joking. Glad to hear it is working out well.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Or the NHS.....
    Not sure what you are getting at - those policies are supposed to help people in other ways.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,952
    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Or the NHS.....
    Not sure what you are getting at - those policies are supposed to help people in other ways.
    The NHS is supposedly short of cash - yet Labour are finding £200 bn for other priorities.....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    On the subject of predictions, where's Hunchman? I want to have a chat with him about 2016's government bond apocalypse...
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Stokes, an England all-rounder allegedly beat up some guy outside a bar. If history repeats itself, then,

    Twenty years on: Arise Sir Benjamin!
  • rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

    I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    edited September 2017
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    Biggest progress recently being good old free markt China.

    Yes, compare it now to when it was under Mao
    ...
    No of course not, Switzerland would be far better for most.

    It was Mao who made the 'Great Leap Forward' so brutal
    If only every country could simply choose to be Switzerland rather than choosing to be Sudan or something. But really: the bulk of the poverty reduction over the last few decades has been in China, so how is that attributable to free market capitalism?
    It was Deng Xiaoping /cn.html
    Again, and? China under Deng up to today is still far too heavily state managed and guided to be called free market capitalism with a straight face.
    I never said it was, just the shift from the communism of Mao to the more market orientated economy of today brought wealth creation with it
    So is the 'free regime collapses?
    Of course because it Mao
    CCP philosophy I gather is that economic security is the first freedom, without which others are unreal for most. But for the last time: it's bizarre how you want to claim Deng China's record for the 'free market'. It's no such thing, state and the market are 'enmeshed' they call it, a 'socialist market economy' very different from a free market one.
    For the last time that is also rather different than the entirely socialist economy under Mao
    That's just a dodge. Your original claim was .
    No, the increased wealth only came when China ditched pure socialism in favour of more of the market economy. McDonnell of course is the guy who quoted from Mao's 'Little Red Book'
    Ask anyone who has worked in China. From an economic POV, it makes Britain look socialist.
    Yes, which only began under Deng after the purer communism of Mao clearly failed.

    China today spends less and taxes less than not only every major western economy and Japan and South Korea but Brazil, South Africa and Russia too. It even spends less than India (although its taxes are slightly higher) Indeed, apart from Singapore and many of the oil rich companies of the Middle East China in tax and spending terms at least is as capitalist as they come
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    It makes the UK less attractive to people who value their utilities working, thus reducing the population, and increasing housing availability.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Doesn't really?
    His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...
    It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

    A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.
    I'm not an expert but seems Tory housing Minister disagreed with you?

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-housebuilders-restricting-the-supply-of-new-houses-to-keep-prices-unnecessarily-high-a6906016.html?amp
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    For SoCal: wages high or low and is either good or bad or bad or good??
  • Theresa to have a meeting with Angela tomorrow
  • rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    Another advantage London has.

    It means your father doesn't have to visit you in SoCal and leave me in charge.

    I get nervous when your father goes on holiday as far as Spain, so Lord knows what happens when he visits you in November
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2017
    surbiton said:

    Stokes, an England all-rounder allegedly beat up some guy outside a bar. If history repeats itself, then,

    Twenty years on: Arise Sir Benjamin!

    The internet is wasted on you...3 days after the story breaks and you report it. You do only get your news by carrier pigeon?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Or the NHS.....
    Not sure what you are getting at - those policies are supposed to help people in other ways.
    The NHS is supposedly short of cash - yet Labour are finding £200 bn for other priorities.....
    Well they proposed increasing NHS funding.
    But it's important to distinguish between buying an asset like a water company that has its own revenue stream, and increasing ongoing spending on a service - which doesn't.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

    I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.
    Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

    Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Doesn't really?
    His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...
    It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

    A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.
    I'm not an expert but seems Tory housing Minister disagreed with you?

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-housebuilders-restricting-the-supply-of-new-houses-to-keep-prices-unnecessarily-high-a6906016.html?amp
    I haven't the energy to google it right now but I'll try to remember for tomorrow.

    Meanwhile housing minister makes uninformed populist political point shocker.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    HYUFD said:

    Yes, which only began under Deng after the purer communism of Mao clearly failed.

    China today spends less and taxes less than not only every major western economy and Japan and South Korea but Brazil, South Africa and Russia too. It even spends less than India (although its taxes are slightly higher) Indeed, apart from Singapore and many of the oil rich companies of the Middle East China in tax and spending terms at least is as capitalist as they come
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

    Taxes are low because the Chinese government sells land to support spending. I'm not sure that's sustainable in the long run.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    edited September 2017
    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:



    ***Ask anyone who has worked in China. From an economic POV, it makes Britain look socialist.***

    You just have to GO to China to understand it. It's a land of pretty wild free market capitalism, with a meagre welfare safety net, with a strange overlay of government owned companies, many of which act just like aggressive US corporations - all of it inside a pious cocoon of theocratic communism in which no one believes.

    China is like a Mafia family business going diligently to church even as they bury dead enemies in the forest, build Las Vegas and Atlantic City, and make many billions from illicit heroin, to excellent and legitimate pizza parlours.

    And, Sean is absolutely correct!
    I can well imagine that it isn't socialist in a meaningful sense - I said this before, but I like Royden Harrison's stuff on Communist regimes being about preparing ruined peasant empires for industrial capitalism rather than being 'post-capitalist' economies.

    But neither is it a 'free market economy' - part of its mafia atmosphere is the way state preferential policies work etc. If you read many of the accounts from people visiting Stalinist Russia you can read similar things about state-owned companies acting like US corporations (which were consciously a model for them), having a meagre safety net, and being interconnected with the black market etc.

    Edit: there was a Situationist pamphlet series about how 'free market' capitalism and statist Communist economies worked so similarly - talked about the Coca-Cola factories in Kazakhstan etc.



  • TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Doesn't really?
    His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...
    It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

    A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.
    It certainly hasn't been shown. The latest estimate is 600,000 houses worth of land with planning permission being sat on and almost 500,000 plots in addition under deals between land owners and developers dependent on planning permission being given. There is absolutely not justification for that and local councils should refuse to allow planning permission on any further land for big developers until that already with permission has been reduced to a reasonable level. Either that or follow the Shelter recommendation that developers should pay council tax on any land that they hold which has planning permission in place.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes, which only began under Deng after the purer communism of Mao clearly failed.

    China today spends less and taxes less than not only every major western economy and Japan and South Korea but Brazil, South Africa and Russia too. It even spends less than India (although its taxes are slightly higher) Indeed, apart from Singapore and many of the oil rich companies of the Middle East China in tax and spending terms at least is as capitalist as they come
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

    Taxes are low because the Chinese government sells land to support spending. I'm not sure that's sustainable in the long run.
    Indeed how long China can keep a lid on its people's freedom is also open to debate
  • 29% of Tory members are clearly Labour sleepers.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Doesn't really?
    His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...
    It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

    A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.
    I'm not an expert but seems Tory housing Minister disagreed with you?

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-housebuilders-restricting-the-supply-of-new-houses-to-keep-prices-unnecessarily-high-a6906016.html?amp
    I think that you also have to allow for the working methods of smaller builders with limited capital and staff. It is not unusual for a small builder to acquire a patch of land, get planning permission, then have lack enough capital and contractors to build rapidly upon it.

    They often can only build at a rate that a smallish workforce can cope with, and sales of houses are needed to finance the next stage of the development. Once you allow for market fluctuations on the rate of selling then generally it takes some years to complete the site and move on.

    If "use it or lose it" is the rule, then smallet developers would be forced to sell their land (often after prolonged attempts at planning permission) to the big builders.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

    I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.
    Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

    Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)
    Fair enough as far as the Australian and New Zealand wines go. Or even Chilean which is excellent. But Californian has no soul, no body and no life. I suspect it is because of the lack of seasons. I can genuinely say that, with a wife who worked in the fine wine trade, I have never tasted a Californian wine I would give table room to. And that covers pretty much the whole price range as well.
  • Hmm, step down after we leave the EU? Theresa has a cunning plan to remain leader indefinitely...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    People can be awfully fancy with their meals. One vote for a some greasy whitefish of mysterious origin wrapped in newspaper please.

    One of my best meals was sausage, egg, chips, beans, mushroom and a slice.

    And a decent claret.
    Spag Bol and a 1923 port
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

    I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.
    Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

    Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)
    Just back from an indulgent tour of Cornwall.

    First night - an OK bottle of Gev, nigh on £80.
    Second night - a really stunning CA Pinot, £55

    Tonight I'm drinking a really decent Marlborough Pinot. Less than the Chateauneuf at the supermarket. It goes with Shepherd's Pie really well: https://www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tummil-flat-pinot-noir-marlborough-2014/
  • 29% of Tory members are clearly Labour sleepers.

    Not me - I am one of the 38%
  • Hmm, step down after we leave the EU? Theresa has a cunning plan to remain leader indefinitely...
    It is not in her hands to decide
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    welshowl said:

    The Conservatives need a leader with the genius to grasp the obvious. If they are to repeat the trick of selling Council Houses they need to build some Council Houses to sell. The UK is gagging for a Left/Right Grand Bargain where we build vast amounts of RSL properties but 50% aren't allocated on the existing needs criteria but a new aspirational/contributory one. And those new properties have a clear long term path to ownership.

    It's these new aspirational renters who are hit by a double whammy. Too poor to ever buy, not poor enough to get a secure RSL tennancy. Locked in the limbo of long term insecure PRS letting which our Tory overlords think is still exclusively the preserve of students and drug addicts. The prospect of a decent RSL property with clear path to eventual ownership would be a retail offer to behold.

    I tend to agree. Housing is a huge issue and we can all theorise and probably disagree how we got here, but we are here, and we need to get our fingers out and do something about it- which means at the least building more of it and lots. Now there's nuance as to how and where and what mix etc etc and clearly we have to have some ne regard for the existing or we could build flats next to Stonehenge which would hardly be appropriate,

    But build we must, and whilst I generally would like govt to bugger off, leave me alone, and not do much, it's got to facilitate here, and I'd hope for some tangible action soon.
    Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
    ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

    I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.
    Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

    Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)
    Just back from an indulgent tour of Cornwall.

    First night - an OK bottle of Gev, nigh on £80.
    Second night - a really stunning CA Pinot, £55

    Tonight I'm drinking a really decent Marlborough Pinot. Less than the Chateauneuf at the supermarket. It goes with Shepherd's Pie really well: https://www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tummil-flat-pinot-noir-marlborough-2014/
    Lol. Just having a glass of Era Costana Rioja from Sainsbury's £5.75 the bottle.

    I'm a pleb.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited September 2017

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Doesn't really?
    His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...
    It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

    A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.
    I'm not an expert but seems Tory housing Minister disagreed with you?

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-housebuilders-restricting-the-supply-of-new-houses-to-keep-prices-unnecessarily-high-a6906016.html?amp
    I think that you also have to allow for the working methods of smaller builders with limited capital and staff. It is not unusual for a small builder to acquire a patch of land, get planning permission, then have lack enough capital and contractors to build rapidly upon it.

    They often can only build at a rate that a smallish workforce can cope with, and sales of houses are needed to finance the next stage of the development. Once you allow for market fluctuations on the rate of selling then generally it takes some years to complete the site and move on.

    If "use it or lose it" is the rule, then smallet developers would be forced to sell their land (often after prolonged attempts at planning permission) to the big builders.
    The problem is that the vast majority of that land banked land is held by the 4 big developers. Between them they have almost half a million plots with existing planning permission. They also have almost the entirety of the additional half a million plots under strategic agreements.

    I agree about smaller builders but there is no excuse for the big boys.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    edited September 2017
    Boris v Mogg then as Davidson is not an MP and staying in Scotland? So given most Tory members want May to step down before the next general election our next PM will likely be Boris or Jacob Rees-Mogg (on that poll Boris) with one of them then taking on Corbyn
  • dixiedean said:

    Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
    ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.

    I fear Everton have done what Liverpool did in 2014.

    Sold their best player, and used the money to buy a load of other players, but never got round to replacing the star man
  • dixiedean said:

    welshowl said:

    The Conservatives need a leader with the genius to grasp the obvious. If they are to repeat the trick of selling Council Houses they need to build some Council Houses to sell. The UK is gagging for a Left/Right Grand Bargain where we build vast amounts of RSL properties but 50% aren't allocated on the existing needs criteria but a new aspirational/contributory one. And those new properties have a clear long term path to ownership.

    It's these new aspirational renters who are hit by a double whammy. Too poor to ever buy, not poor enough to get a secure RSL tennancy. Locked in the limbo of long term insecure PRS letting which our Tory overlords think is still exclusively the preserve of students and drug addicts. The prospect of a decent RSL property with clear path to eventual ownership would be a retail offer to behold.

    I tend to agree. Housing is a huge issue and we can all theorise and probably disagree how we got here, but we are here, and we need to get our fingers out and do something about it- which means at the least building more of it and lots. Now there's nuance as to how and where and what mix etc etc and clearly we have to have some ne regard for the existing or we could build flats next to Stonehenge which would hardly be appropriate,

    But build we must, and whilst I generally would like govt to bugger off, leave me alone, and not do much, it's got to facilitate here, and I'd hope for some tangible action soon.
    Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
    ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.
    Letting a team from Cyprus down to 10 equalise in the 87th minute was bonkers - and it is not as if he hasn't spent
  • NEW THREAD

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    dixiedean said:

    welshowl said:

    The Conservatives need a leader with the genius to grasp the obvious. If they are to repeat the trick of selling Council Houses they need to build some Council Houses to sell. The UK is gagging for a Left/Right Grand Bargain where we build vast amounts of RSL properties but 50% aren't allocated on the existing needs criteria but a new aspirational/contributory one. And those new properties have a clear long term path to ownership.

    It's these new aspirational renters who are hit by a double whammy. Too poor to ever buy, not poor enough to get a secure RSL tennancy. Locked in the limbo of long term insecure PRS letting which our Tory overlords think is still exclusively the preserve of students and drug addicts. The prospect of a decent RSL property with clear path to eventual ownership would be a retail offer to behold.

    I tend to agree. Housing is a huge issue and we can all theorise and probably disagree how we got here, but we are here, and we need to get our fingers out and do something about it- which means at the least building more of it and lots. Now there's nuance as to how and where and what mix etc etc and clearly we have to have some ne regard for the existing or we could build flats next to Stonehenge which would hardly be appropriate,

    But build we must, and whilst I generally would like govt to bugger off, leave me alone, and not do much, it's got to facilitate here, and I'd hope for some tangible action soon.
    Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
    ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.
    Javid is imposing house building targets on councils with high price to wage differentials regardless of what the local councils want
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    edited September 2017
    dixiedean said:

    welshowl said:

    The Conservatives need a leader with the genius to grasp the obvious. If they are to repeat the trick of selling Council Houses they need to build some Council Houses to sell. The UK is gagging for a Left/Right Grand Bargain where we build vast amounts of RSL properties but 50% aren't allocated on the existing needs criteria but a new aspirational/contributory one. And those new properties have a clear long term path to ownership.

    It's these new aspirational renters who are hit by a double whammy. Too poor to ever buy, not poor enough to get a secure RSL tennancy. Locked in the limbo of long term insecure PRS letting which our Tory overlords think is still exclusively the preserve of students and drug addicts. The prospect of a decent RSL property with clear path to eventual ownership would be a retail offer to behold.

    I tend to agree. Housing is a huge issue and we can all theorise and probably disagree how we got here, but we are here, and we need to get our fingers out and do something about it- which means at the least building more of it and lots. Now there's nuance as to how and where and what mix etc etc and clearly we have to have some ne regard for the existing or we could build flats next to Stonehenge which would hardly be appropriate,

    But build we must, and whilst I generally would like govt to bugger off, leave me alone, and not do much, it's got to facilitate here, and I'd hope for some tangible action soon.
    Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
    ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.
    I'm smashing plates Greek Cypriot style ( in frustration).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    welshowl said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

    I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.
    Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

    Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)
    Just back from an indulgent tour of Cornwall.

    First night - an OK bottle of Gev, nigh on £80.
    Second night - a really stunning CA Pinot, £55

    Tonight I'm drinking a really decent Marlborough Pinot. Less than the Chateauneuf at the supermarket. It goes with Shepherd's Pie really well: https://www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tummil-flat-pinot-noir-marlborough-2014/
    Lol. Just having a glass of Era Costana Rioja from Sainsbury's £5.75 the bottle.

    I'm a pleb.
    Cheapskate! I splashed an entire £5.99 on a Montes Cabaret Sauvignon from the Co-op.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Doesn't really?
    His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...
    It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

    A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.
    I'm not an expert but seems Tory housing Minister disagreed with you?

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-housebuilders-restricting-the-supply-of-new-houses-to-keep-prices-unnecessarily-high-a6906016.html?amp
    I think that you also have to allow for the working methods of smaller builders with limited capital and staff. It is not unusual for a small builder to acquire a patch of land, get planning permission, then have lack enough capital and contractors to build rapidly upon it.

    They often can only build at
    The problem is that the vast majority of that land banked land is held by the 4 big developers. Between them they have almost half a million plots with existing planning permission. They also have almost the entirety of the additional half a million plots under strategic agreements.

    I agree about smaller builders but there is no excuse for the big boys.
    Perhaps only applying the rule to developments over 100 houses might do the trick.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Conservatives who go on about Venezuela and Communism are missing the point. They would do better to focus on criticising what he is actually proposing rather than what they think he might do.

    Corbyn isn't offering that - he's offering public ownership of utilities and no student fees. As the economist noted - that wouldn't raise eyebrows in Europe. Indeed for a free market publication they came dangerously close to endorsing him over Theresa May in this piece:

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

    And how, precisely, does public ownership of utilities help those trying to buy a home?
    Doesn't really?
    His house building programme, 'use it or lose it' tax on unused land - those are supposed to help. May be other policies I have missed...
    It has been shown many times that the amount of land bank that developers holds is often indeed usually not excessive taking into account current and planned future development.

    A bit like the interest rates charged by payday loan companies a reasonable rate of which I think was calculated at around 325% without being unduly unrealistic about default rates and so forth.
    It certainly hasn't been shown. The latest estimate is 600,000 houses worth of land with planning permission being sat on and almost 500,000 plots in addition under deals between land owners and developers dependent on planning permission being given. There is absolutely not justification for that and local councils should refuse to allow planning permission on any further land for big developers until that already with permission has been reduced to a reasonable level. Either that or follow the Shelter recommendation that developers should pay council tax on any land that they hold which has planning permission in place.
    It has been shown and I will show it to you. Tomorrow. You don't want Jeremy Corbyn as PM but are happy to suspend free market economic rules when you feel like it.

    @surbiton is heading in the right direction with that recent post.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    All current logic suggests May should not fight the next GE for Con.

    But it's not absolutely 100% certain that the above is the case.

    Yes, she was terrible in the 2017 GE campaign. But if she does well as PM, perceptions of her could change - just as perceptions of many other politicians have changed.

    Plus, she might become a better performer as she gets more practice at being the front person.

    Also, I suspect it was the Con manifesto that was a much, much bigger problem than May personally.

    Finally, even now, on the back of the terrible GE campaign, May is still preferred as PM over Corbyn.

    So it would be wise to keep a (slightly) open mind. Yes, it's highly likely she should be replaced before the next GE. But not 100% certain if things change.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    dixiedean said:

    welshowl said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

    I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.
    Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

    Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)
    Just back from an indulgent tour of Cornwall.

    First night - an OK bottle of Gev, nigh on £80.
    Second night - a really stunning CA Pinot, £55

    Tonight I'm drinking a really decent Marlborough Pinot. Less than the Chateauneuf at the supermarket. It goes with Shepherd's Pie really well: https://www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tummil-flat-pinot-noir-marlborough-2014/
    Lol. Just having a glass of Era Costana Rioja from Sainsbury's £5.75 the bottle.

    I'm a pleb.
    Cheapskate! I splashed an entire £5.99 on a Montes Cabaret Sauvignon from the Co-op.
    I was thinking of retsina but it went a bit sour tonight....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    dixiedean said:

    Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
    ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.

    I fear Everton have done what Liverpool did in 2014.

    Sold their best player, and used the money to buy a load of other players, but never got round to replacing the star man
    This is true. Unfortunately, we can't replace Lukaku like-for-like just as you couldn't with Suarez. He is showing just how good he is now at United. The problem is we had no-one else. We've played one up front with a guy who is never injured for the last few years. We needed no other striker, and nobody decent would come for the occasional 10 mins when the game was over. So we are left with Calvert-Lewin who works hard, is young and shows promise, and a bloke from Malaga.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    welshowl said:

    The Conservatives need a leader with the genius to grasp the obvious. If they are to repeat the trick of selling Council Houses they need to build some Council Houses to sell. The UK is gagging for a Left/Right Grand Bargain where we build vast amounts of RSL properties but 50% aren't allocated on the existing needs criteria but a new aspirational/contributory one. And those new properties have a clear long term path to ownership.

    It's these new aspirational renters who are hit by a double whammy. Too poor to ever buy, not poor enough to get a secure RSL tennancy. Locked in the limbo of long term insecure PRS letting which our Tory overlords think is still exclusively the preserve of students and drug addicts. The prospect of a decent RSL property with clear path to eventual ownership would be a retail offer to behold.

    I tend to agree. Housing is a huge issue and we can all theorise and probably disagree how we got here, but we are here, and we need to get our fingers out and do something about it- which means at the least building more of it and lots. Now there's nuance as to how and where and what mix etc etc and clearly we have to have some ne regard for the existing or we could build flats next to Stonehenge which would hardly be appropriate,

    But build we must, and whilst I generally would like govt to bugger off, leave me alone, and not do much, it's got to facilitate here, and I'd hope for some tangible action soon.
    Meanwhile, my newly-elected Tory council is trumpeting the fact it has cancelled the Housing Plan for 26 000 new homes. We are going no-where while the default view of Shire councils is completely BANANA.
    ps, Neither are EFC under Koeman. My glass is less than half-full after tonight Mr.Owl.
    Javid is imposing house building targets on councils with high price to wage differentials regardless of what the local councils want
    So I hear. He needs to get on with it. No excuses, no backsliding. If he does, then good on him.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    Couple of ok Indian places in Corona del Mar
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    edited September 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

    I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.
    Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

    Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)
    Marlborough Sauvingon Blanc $30 in the UK ?? Only if you push the boat out. Plenty of very drinkable options in the £8-£13 price bracket, which would match $15-$18 in SoCal.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    dixiedean said:

    welshowl said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SoCal vs London

    Advantage SoCal
    Weather
    Property costs
    Wages
    Mexican food
    Burgers
    New World wine prices
    Beaches
    Weather

    Advantage London
    Indian food
    Public transport
    Top class restaurants
    Things stay open after 10pm
    Indian food
    Grocery shopping is a fraction of the price
    Kettles and toasters work at a reasonable speed
    Fewer homeless people with mental and drug issues

    In the interests of fairness you should also list disadvantages of Southern California such as Earthquakes and large scale forest fires.

    I also note you include New World Wines in your list. I assume by this you mean Californian wine which I have to say is just utterly dreadful.
    Richard Tyndall. Please email me your address. I will send you a bottle of Ridge Monte Bello, and then will accept your apologies.

    Back on point, I don't just mean US, but include Australian and New Zealand. A Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is about $15-18 here, against $30 in the UK. (Although the price difference for other Australasian wines is much smaller.)
    Just back from an indulgent tour of Cornwall.

    First night - an OK bottle of Gev, nigh on £80.
    Second night - a really stunning CA Pinot, £55

    Tonight I'm drinking a really decent Marlborough Pinot. Less than the Chateauneuf at the supermarket. It goes with Shepherd's Pie really well: https://www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tummil-flat-pinot-noir-marlborough-2014/
    Lol. Just having a glass of Era Costana Rioja from Sainsbury's £5.75 the bottle.

    I'm a pleb.
    Cheapskate! I splashed an entire £5.99 on a Montes Cabaret Sauvignon from the Co-op.
    Cabaret Sauvingnon - the perfect wine for entertaining! :lol:
This discussion has been closed.