70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Maybe tenants should be given a right to buy off their landlord?
Dare I say it that might be a good policy - minimum 10 years as tenant or so ?
Thus guaranteeing that no tenant could stay a long time.
Mm ok - how about if a property is sold then any tenant with X years has first option to buy at an independently assessed price ?
Nah, won't fly. The folk memory of the horrors of the 1970s is still too searing. No landlord would take the risk. After all, the tenant can already offer to buy at the market rate, so any such idea would rightly be interpreted as a step to partial confiscation.
The truth is that every attempt to interfere with the market makes it worse. The most useful reform would be to make it easier to have long tenancies to give tenants more security. This is best done by promoting professional landlord companies, and especially large-scale build-to-let by pension funds etc, who (unlike private landlords) won't need to keep flexibility to get repossession of the property in case their personal circumstances change. The government does seem to be making some progress on this, but it's still a tiny part of the market.
The other important change is to make it easier to enforce contracts. We hear a lot about rogue landlords, but there are a lot of rogue tenants - which is an important reason why landlords want to be able to chuck them out. No one wants to chuck out a good tenant unless they need the property back themselves.
I've often dealt with landlords who think they can raise the rent quoting 'the rising market' at me. It is a negotiating tactic. Eventually you agree a modest rise because the landlord doesn't want the upheaval/void/cost/risk of finding a new tenant. There isn't much altruism involved, particularly when you are dealing through a middleman. Even if you are a 'good' tenant.
But otherwise, I agree with your comments. The easiest and best solution is to increase the length and security of tenancies, and to encourage the large scale build to let, disincentivising buy to let by inexperienced private investors, and encouraging private homeownership.
70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Wow.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is. We have to house statutory homeless families in hotels as far away as Luton and St Neots. Even those in temporary accommodation are often in totally unsuitable properties for the family size (too small or nowhere near the kids' school.)
If you walk through the underpasses in Central Milton Keynes there is the shameful sight of tents of people with nowhere else to go.
We are building new council houses. We've signed leases to provide high volume temporary accommodation in MK. We have invested in a £10m property fund. We've even commissioned new modular (i.e. flat-pack) housing to act as temporary housing while we deal with the spike we have.
And how does the Government help us? Any exception to right to buy? No chance. As you say, it's just fuelled a right to buy boom across our older estates. Are we included on the list of Councils who can lift their borrowing cap to invest in further houses? Nope (we genuinely suspect that it may be different if we had a Tory council)
I try to be as non-partisan as I can, but it is difficult here. The Government doesn't give any indication that it understands or really cares about our housing problems. And our Tory MPs are good at warm words but have showed no willingness to rock the boat or really cause a fuss. With hindsight, it's no real surprise they both nearly got kicked out in June when we all thought both MK seats were safe (and the Tories were all sent to Coventry ha ha)
Really interesting insight - thanks for sharing. Seems a clearcut example of unintended consequences no one would be particularly keen on.
70% absolutely stunned me.
Though to be fair prior to Thatcher that figure would have been 100% being tenants. 30% still own their own home which is 30% more than would have been the case otherwise - and I'm assuming that as this figure is being highlighted to make a point then it is over 30% in the rest of the nation.
Turkey's application was dead in the water when it turned its back on democratic norms at the time of the coup and the repression afterwards which occured after the referendum.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
"In brief: Turkey is a candidate to join the EU. But it’s unlikely to join any time soon. There are tensions to be resolved over Cyprus before aspects of the negotiation can even be opened, and the EU has concerns over Turkey’s human rights record. If and when the negotiations finish, Turkey must get approval to join from each existing EU member. Some are opposed to, or planning to hold a referendum on, Turkish membership. Support for membership among the Turkish population has declined since 2010."
"What British Eurosceptics do not understand is that Turkey is no longer the country it was more than a decade ago, when it was eager to join the EU. In May [2016], Mr Erdogan told the EU, “We’ll go our way, you go yours.” "
If there was no prospect of it ever happening, why did they expend all that effort in screening/opening chapters etc.?
Accession requires a treaty signed by every member. The moment that Cyprus joined the EU, Turkey's chance dropped to near zero. (That's probably also true of Poland and Hungary too.)
CBA to look it up but I ythink those are the three biggest net recipients of EU largesse. If France and Germany wanted Turkey in, I think they would have to give thought to which side of their bread was buttered.
Merkel, Verhofstadt, Erdogan and everybody else have been behaving as if Turkey was on track to accession until post-EUref events last year. The claim that this was not happening, on a kind of "Wake up sheeple, you are just thinking what they want you to think" seems a bit tin hat and zerohedge to me. And if they were all just pretending, there's a lovely fable in there somewhere along the lines of crying wolf.
The international trading system created by the U.S. after the Second World War has a new leader — the European Union.
The EU on Friday announced the conclusion of a landmark trade agreement with Japan — covering economies worth about 30 percent of the world’s GDP. That comes after scoring a trade deal with Vietnam in 2015 and Canada last year.
70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Wow.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is. We have to house statutory homeless families in hotels as far away as Luton and St Neots. Even those in temporary accommodation are often in totally unsuitable properties for the family size (too small or nowhere near the kids' school.)
If you walk through the underpasses in Central Milton Keynes there is the shameful sight of tents of people with nowhere else to go.
We are building new council houses. We've signed leases to provide high volume temporary accommodation in MK. We have invested in a £10m property fund. We've even commissioned new modular (i.e. flat-pack) housing to act as temporary housing while we deal with the spike we have.
And how does the Government help us? Any exception to right to buy? No chance. As you say, it's just fuelled a right to buy boom across our older estates. Are we included on the list of Councils who can lift their borrowing cap to invest in further houses? Nope (we genuinely suspect that it may be different if we had a Tory council)
I try to be as non-partisan as I can, but it is difficult here. The Government doesn't give any indication that it understands or really cares about our housing problems. And our Tory MPs are good at warm words but have showed no willingness to rock the boat or really cause a fuss. With hindsight, it's no real surprise they both nearly got kicked out in June when we all thought both MK seats were safe (and the Tories were all sent to Coventry ha ha)
Here you are - a family of four, including a disabled child, living in a single room. I challenge anyone to watch this and not be shocked.
What if central government imposed a rule whereby it paid a (small) certain sum to a council every year for every council house it has? That would encourage councils to build more, no?
The New Homes bonus was similar to this. Council tax funding for 6 years for all new properties. Made a big impact here - this paid for significant infrastructure funding in the new estates and kept public support for growth and meant developers didn't have to cut corners on infrastructure. It's still received in part, but it was raided to pay for Adult Social Care back in 2016, so it doesn't go anywhere near as far now.
I thought this was politically smart as it gave areas an incentive to support growth, and real rewards for doing so, paid on delivery not on promises.
In practice, most authorities with council housing stock have large volume ('000s) compared to the amount they can build each year, so simply funding based on number of council houses wouldn't incentivise growth as effectively.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
It's finally sunk in why Leavers struggle to understand the realities of the Turkish situation. It seems entirely natural to them that Turkey could have its cake and eat it, and that the EU would be happy to facilitate this.
What about Turkey's proposed accession consisted of having cake and eating it?
Turkey's application was dead in the water when it turned its back on democratic norms at the time of the coup and the repression afterwards which occured after the referendum.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
"In brief: Turkey is a candidate to join the EU. But it’s unlikely to join any time soon. There are tensions to be resolved over Cyprus before aspects of the negotiation can even be opened, and the EU has concerns over Turkey’s human rights record. If and when the negotiations finish, Turkey must get approval to join from each existing EU member. Some are opposed to, or planning to hold a referendum on, Turkish membership. Support for membership among the Turkish population has declined since 2010."
"What British Eurosceptics do not understand is that Turkey is no longer the country it was more than a decade ago, when it was eager to join the EU. In May [2016], Mr Erdogan told the EU, “We’ll go our way, you go yours.” "
Funny how all these "Turkey won't join" remarks only came about AFTER Turkish accession came into the debate. Find a speech by Cameron etc prior to Vote Leave making Turkish accession an issue saying that the Turks weren't welcome. Because until that point the opposite was being said.
Apart from the quote from Erdogan himself which I helpfully included for you to show that it wasn't just Britain or the EU side asserting that Turkish accession wasn't going to happen.
Turkey's application was dead in the water when it turned its back on democratic norms at the time of the coup and the repression afterwards which occured after the referendum.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
One of the most brazen - because it is so easily disproved - of the Remainer lies.
Was that a "Remainer" lie (ie attributable to all parties who supported remaining in the EU) or was it just a lie on the part of the Conservatives who took control of the Remain campaign? I think it was the latter. So it would be rather more exact to talk about a Conservative lie, rather than a Remainer one.
70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Wow.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is. We have to house statutory homeless families in hotels as far away as Luton and St Neots. Even those in temporary accommodation are often in totally unsuitable properties for the family size (too small or nowhere near the kids' school.)
If you walk through the underpasses in Central Milton Keynes there is the shameful sight of tents of people with nowhere else to go.
We are building new council houses. We've signed leases to provide high volume temporary accommodation in MK. We have invested in a £10m property fund. We've even commissioned new modular (i.e. flat-pack) housing to act as temporary housing while we deal with the spike we have.
And how does the Government help us? Any exception to right to buy? No chance. As you say, it's just fuelled a right to buy boom across our older estates. Are we included on the list of Councils who can lift their borrowing cap to invest in further houses? Nope (we genuinely suspect that it may be different if we had a Tory council)
I try to be as non-partisan as I can, but it is difficult here. The Government doesn't give any indication that it understands or really cares about our housing problems. And our Tory MPs are good at warm words but have showed no willingness to rock the boat or really cause a fuss. With hindsight, it's no real surprise they both nearly got kicked out in June when we all thought both MK seats were safe (and the Tories were all sent to Coventry ha ha)
Really interesting insight - thanks for sharing. Seems a clearcut example of unintended consequences no one would be particularly keen on.
70% absolutely stunned me.
Though to be fair prior to Thatcher that figure would have been 100% being tenants. 30% still own their own home which is 30% more than would have been the case otherwise - and I'm assuming that as this figure is being highlighted to make a point then it is over 30% in the rest of the nation.
40% nationally are now owned by private landlords according to the article. Thatcher may have introduced it - but governments of both Labour and Conservative stripes have had decades to resolve these consequences.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
It's finally sunk in why Leavers struggle to understand the realities of the Turkish situation. It seems entirely natural to them that Turkey could have its cake and eat it, and that the EU would be happy to facilitate this.
What about Turkey's proposed accession consisted of having cake and eating it?
No, it consisted of Turkey swallowing endless negotiating chapters that they showed absolutely no willingness to do.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
It's finally sunk in why Leavers struggle to understand the realities of the Turkish situation. It seems entirely natural to them that Turkey could have its cake and eat it, and that the EU would be happy to facilitate this.
What about Turkey's proposed accession consisted of having cake and eating it?
No, it consisted of Turkey swallowing endless negotiating chapters that they showed absolutely no willingness to do.
Endless? There are a fixed number for every country. Turkey was making progress on most of them.
Turkey's application was dead in the water when it turned its back on democratic norms at the time of the coup and the repression afterwards which occured after the referendum.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
One of the most brazen - because it is so easily disproved - of the Remainer lies.
Was that a "Remainer" lie (ie attributable to all parties who supported remaining in the EU) or was it just a lie on the part of the Conservatives who took control of the Remain campaign? I think it was the latter. So it would be rather more exact to talk about a Conservative lie, rather than a Remainer one.
The only part of the Labour Party that was obviously active in the Referendum was Labour Leave.
The LibDems wouldn't even let us talk about the EU for five years. And that in spite of their Manifesto commitment.
So I guess it must have been Cameron and Osborne, doing their worst..... Who'd have thought, eh?
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
It's finally sunk in why Leavers struggle to understand the realities of the Turkish situation. It seems entirely natural to them that Turkey could have its cake and eat it, and that the EU would be happy to facilitate this.
What about Turkey's proposed accession consisted of having cake and eating it?
No, it consisted of Turkey swallowing endless negotiating chapters that they showed absolutely no willingness to do.
Endless? There are a fixed number for every country. Turkey was making progress on most of them.
Good grief! Just read Mail, Express comments (I know) re: Brexit deal. If they are so angry it must be a reasonable compromise. Big question is can May retain the Mail's support?
70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Wow.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is. We have to house statutory homeless families in hotels as far away as Luton and St Neots. Even those in temporary accommodation are often in totally unsuitable properties for the family size (too small or nowhere near the kids' school.)
If you walk through the underpasses in Central Milton Keynes there is the shameful sight of tents of people with nowhere else to go.
We are building new council houses. We've signed leases to provide high volume temporary accommodation in MK. We have invested in a £10m property fund. We've even commissioned new modular (i.e. flat-pack) housing to act as temporary housing while we deal with the spike we have.
And how does the Government help us? Any exception to right to buy? No chance. As you say, it's just fuelled a right to buy boom across our older estates. Are we included on the list of Councils who can lift their borrowing cap to invest in further houses? Nope (we genuinely suspect that it may be different if we had a Tory council)
I try to be as non-partisan as I can, but it is difficult here. The Government doesn't give any indication that it understands or really cares about our housing problems. And our Tory MPs are good at warm words but have showed no willingness to rock the boat or really cause a fuss. With hindsight, it's no real surprise they both nearly got kicked out in June when we all thought both MK seats were safe (and the Tories were all sent to Coventry ha ha)
Here you are - a family of four, including a disabled child, living in a single room. I challenge anyone to watch this and not be shocked.
Turkey's application was dead in the water when it turned its back on democratic norms at the time of the coup and the repression afterwards which occured after the referendum.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
"In brief: Turkey is a candidate to join the EU. But it’s unlikely to join any time soon. There are tensions to be resolved over Cyprus before aspects of the negotiation can even be opened, and the EU has concerns over Turkey’s human rights record. If and when the negotiations finish, Turkey must get approval to join from each existing EU member. Some are opposed to, or planning to hold a referendum on, Turkish membership. Support for membership among the Turkish population has declined since 2010."
"What British Eurosceptics do not understand is that Turkey is no longer the country it was more than a decade ago, when it was eager to join the EU. In May [2016], Mr Erdogan told the EU, “We’ll go our way, you go yours.” "
Funny how all these "Turkey won't join" remarks only came about AFTER Turkish accession came into the debate. Find a speech by Cameron etc prior to Vote Leave making Turkish accession an issue saying that the Turks weren't welcome. Because until that point the opposite was being said.
"What British Eurosceptics do not understand is that Turkey is no longer the country it was more than a decade ago, when it was eager to join the EU. In May [2016], Mr Erdogan told the EU, “We’ll go our way, you go yours.” "
The most barefaced lie ever posted anywhere on the internet. That remark was nothing to do with Turkish accession to the EU. It is sadly becoming increasingly clear that chronic butthurt is frequently the precursor of outright dementia.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
It's finally sunk in why Leavers struggle to understand the realities of the Turkish situation. It seems entirely natural to them that Turkey could have its cake and eat it, and that the EU would be happy to facilitate this.
What about Turkey's proposed accession consisted of having cake and eating it?
No, it consisted of Turkey swallowing endless negotiating chapters that they showed absolutely no willingness to do.
Endless? There are a fixed number for every country. Turkey was making progress on most of them.
Most of them hadn't even been opened.
33 needed for membership, 16 opened, 1 complete. Very nearly half had been opened. They were also making progress on some of the uopened chapters too.
Isn't something like one meeeellion bitcoin held by "Satoshi Nakamoto" him-/her- self? It's generally considered to be "lost" but perhaps it might turn up one of these days, probably right before the whole scheme goes bust.
Satoshi is widely believed to be Hal Finney, who died in 2014. He has been cryogenically preserved though so he may come back one day!
I think it is more accurate to say that Hal Finney is widely believed to have been involved. If he was the only person is another matter.
A researcher for the animal welfare network has spotted this quote from Barnier this afternoon:
"The Commission had studied Theresa May’s red lines & has concluded that the only option for the UK is a free-trade agreement modelled on the deal the EU struck with Canada in 2016"
That's interesting, because my first reaction this morning was to think that we were moving towards the Norway model. It's a second-hand quote and I don't have a source, but he's Brussels-based and usually accurate.
A researcher for the animal welfare network has spotted this quote from Barnier this afternoon:
"The Commission had studied Theresa May’s red lines & has concluded that the only option for the UK is a free-trade agreement modelled on the deal the EU struck with Canada in 2016"
That's interesting, because my first reaction this morning was to think that we were moving towards the Norway model. It's a second-hand quote and I don't have a source, but he's Brussels-based and usually accurate.
It's quite an old quote. The red line no longer exists, of course.
A researcher for the animal welfare network has spotted this quote from Barnier this afternoon:
"The Commission had studied Theresa May’s red lines & has concluded that the only option for the UK is a free-trade agreement modelled on the deal the EU struck with Canada in 2016"
That's interesting, because my first reaction this morning was to think that we were moving towards the Norway model. It's a second-hand quote and I don't have a source, but he's Brussels-based and usually accurate.
Yes, it's quoted on the Guardian live blog (see 11:22):
I think Barnier is correct, it will be 'Canada plus' with much haggling over how much 'plus' it will be. I would expect more on agriculture and something on financial services, but we shall see,
The international trading system created by the U.S. after the Second World War has a new leader — the European Union.
The EU on Friday announced the conclusion of a landmark trade agreement with Japan — covering economies worth about 30 percent of the world’s GDP. That comes after scoring a trade deal with Vietnam in 2015 and Canada last year.
Yep - I was saying this the other day. As the US turns in on itself and walks away from multilateral deals, the EU has a chance to write the rules of global trade.
70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Wow.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is. We have to house statutory homeless families in hotels as far away as Luton and St Neots. Even those in temporary accommodation are often in totally unsuitable properties for the family size (too small or nowhere near the kids' school.)
If you walk through the underpasses in Central Milton Keynes there is the shameful sight of tents of people with nowhere else to go.
We are building new council houses. We've signed leases to provide high volume temporary accommodation in MK. We have invested in a £10m property fund. We've even commissioned new modular (i.e. flat-pack) housing to act as temporary housing while we deal with the spike we have.
And how does the Government help us? Any exception to right to buy? No chance. As you say, it's just fuelled a right to buy boom across our older estates. Are we included on the list of Councils who can lift their borrowing cap to invest in further houses? Nope (we genuinely suspect that it may be different if we had a Tory council)
I try to be as non-partisan as I can, but it is difficult here. The Government doesn't give any indication that it understands or really cares about our housing problems. And our Tory MPs are good at warm words but have showed no willingness to rock the boat or really cause a fuss. With hindsight, it's no real surprise they both nearly got kicked out in June when we all thought both MK seats were safe (and the Tories were all sent to Coventry ha ha)
Here you are - a family of four, including a disabled child, living in a single room. I challenge anyone to watch this and not be shocked.
The ignorance towards the problem of homelessness is absolutely stunning. Decent housing should be a basic right.
I was shocked to discover the other day that in my borough there are about 10,000 people in temporary accommodation - that's nearly 3% of the total population. It's likely that the % of children would be higher since single people are not usually eligible for council-provided temporary accommodation.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
I'm pretty sure that most Leavers voted for that and a sensible take on the trade and economics of it all, rather than Redwood and co.'s buccaneering fantasy about being Singapore.
A researcher for the animal welfare network has spotted this quote from Barnier this afternoon:
"The Commission had studied Theresa May’s red lines & has concluded that the only option for the UK is a free-trade agreement modelled on the deal the EU struck with Canada in 2016"
That's interesting, because my first reaction this morning was to think that we were moving towards the Norway model. It's a second-hand quote and I don't have a source, but he's Brussels-based and usually accurate.
Yes, it's quoted on the Guardian live blog (see 11:22):
I think Barnier is correct, it will be 'Canada plus' with much haggling over how much 'plus' it will be. I would expect more on agriculture and something on financial services, but we shall see,
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
If you are basing your hopes on that motley crew to rock the boat you've no chance.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
I'm pretty sure that most Leavers voted for that and a sensible take on the trade and economics of it all, rather than Redwood and co.'s buccaneering fantasy about being Singapore.
Meaningful restrictions on freedom of movement is the key deliverable from here on in, I'd have thought. Being outside the SM and CU - but being aligned to them - will allow the UK to deliver regulatory certainty for business and to control its borders. Free trade deals are really a minority interest.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
I'm pretty sure that most Leavers voted for that and a sensible take on the trade and economics of it all, rather than Redwood and co.'s buccaneering fantasy about being Singapore.
Meaningful restrictions on freedom of movement is the key deliverable from here on in, I'd have thought. Being outside the SM and CU - but being aligned to them - will allow the UK to deliver regulatory certainty for business and to control its borders. Free trade deals are really a minority interest.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
I disagree. It looks to me like Remain is done for. With this agreement, the EU has secured what it needed from Brexit Britain, so has no interest in doing anything other than playing with a straight bat on an FTA. It will set the parameters for a deal and we will decide what we want within those. Why would the EU want us back, at least on the terms we have now?
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
I'm pretty sure that most Leavers voted for that and a sensible take on the trade and economics of it all, rather than Redwood and co.'s buccaneering fantasy about being Singapore.
Meaningful restrictions on freedom of movement is the key deliverable from here on in, I'd have thought. Being outside the SM and CU - but being aligned to them - will allow the UK to deliver regulatory certainty for business and to control its borders. Free trade deals are really a minority interest.
Ending FoM is the ultimate red line surely? Ditching that will result in Tory party meltdown i would have thought.
40% nationally are now owned by private landlords according to the article. Thatcher may have introduced it - but governments of both Labour and Conservative stripes have had decades to resolve these consequences.
The original plans that Thatcher introduced were actually pretty good. Under the 1980 legislation councils got 75%* of the amount raised by council house sales for building new council houses. Between 1980 and 1985 a total of around 490,000* council houses were sold in England and 250,000* new council houses were built using the proceeds.
It was restricting the ability of councils to use the money to build more houses that made Right to Buy a bad policy in the long term. If the money can be reinvested then it is a very good policy as wll as a great way to get people on the housing ladder.
*All these figures are taken from 'Promised you a Miracle' By Andy Beckett
The key thing is that this is based on the UK's previous red lines. They no longer exist - at least in the form they did previously.
The red lines haven't changed at all.
OK :-D
Well, of course, a few of the EU red lines have been crossed. As well as my previous list I see that they've given up on the nonsense about the UK paying their expenses for moving agencies out of the UK.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
I disagree. It looks to me like Remain is done for. With this agreement, the EU has secured what it needed from Brexit Britain, so has no interest in doing anything other than playing with a straight bat on an FTA. It will set the parameters for a deal and we will decide what we want within those. Why would the EU want us back, at least on the terms we have now?
Correct - what it means is that future governments will have the choice to work closely with the EU or not - as they do now any other country - bringing benefits and consequences.
The key thing is that this is based on the UK's previous red lines. They no longer exist - at least in the form they did previously.
The red lines haven't changed at all.
OK :-D
Well, of course, a few of the EU red lines have been crossed. As well as my previous list I see that they've given up on the nonsense about the UK paying their expenses for moving agencies out of the UK.
Was sickening to hear Foster bleating about the good of the country this morning when all she cares about is the good of the DUP. Good luck to the Northern Irish in having a border poll. That will take the smile off hers and Dodds's faces
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
I'm pretty sure that most Leavers voted for that and a sensible take on the trade and economics of it all, rather than Redwood and co.'s buccaneering fantasy about being Singapore.
Meaningful restrictions on freedom of movement is the key deliverable from here on in, I'd have thought. Being outside the SM and CU - but being aligned to them - will allow the UK to deliver regulatory certainty for business and to control its borders. Free trade deals are really a minority interest.
Ending FoM is the ultimate red line surely? Ditching that will result in Tory party meltdown i would have thought.
That will not be abandoned. The key thing is whether it is symbolic or meaningful.
Turkey's application was dead in the water when it turned its back on democratic norms at the time of the coup and the repression afterwards which occured after the referendum.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
"In brief: Turkey is a candidate to join the EU. But it’s unlikely to join any time soon. There are tensions to be resolved over Cyprus before aspects of the negotiation can even be opened, and the EU has concerns over Turkey’s human rights record. If and when the negotiations finish, Turkey must get approval to join from each existing EU member. Some are opposed to, or planning to hold a referendum on, Turkish membership. Support for membership among the Turkish population has declined since 2010."
"What British Eurosceptics do not understand is that Turkey is no longer the country it was more than a decade ago, when it was eager to join the EU. In May [2016], Mr Erdogan told the EU, “We’ll go our way, you go yours.” "
Funny how all these "Turkey won't join" remarks only came about AFTER Turkish accession came into the debate. Find a speech by Cameron etc prior to Vote Leave making Turkish accession an issue saying that the Turks weren't welcome. Because until that point the opposite was being said.
The fact is that it was in the interest of the UK government to pretend that Turkish accession was likely. But even before the attempted coup in Turkey it really wasn't.
Turkish membership of the EU is popular in exactly zero EU countries. And it is massively and overwhelmingly opposed in several countries.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
I disagree. It looks to me like Remain is done for. With this agreement, the EU has secured what it needed from Brexit Britain, so has no interest in doing anything other than playing with a straight bat on an FTA. It will set the parameters for a deal and we will decide what we want within those. Why would the EU want us back, at least on the terms we have now?
Correct - what it means is that future governments will have the choice to work closely with the EU or not - as they do now any other country - bringing benefits and consequences.
Almost like we've "taken back control"...
Almost. This is the beginnings of what will end up being a relatively decent final deal. I am happy if people think it is a UK victory, an EU one, or a win-win. The important thing is that we have moved on from the cliff edge scenario and we will end up with a Brexit that is less damaging - perhaps even far less damaging - than I had feared.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
The Tory Empire 2.0 types were all Remain supporters.
Turkey's application was dead in the water when it turned its back on democratic norms at the time of the coup and the repression afterwards which occured after the referendum.
Prior to the referendum it was still the official policy of this nation and the EU as a whole to say that the Turks could join. Was our government lying to the Turks when they said they could join?
"In brief: Turkey is a candidate to join the EU. But it’s unlikely to join any time soon. There are tensions to be resolved over Cyprus before aspects of the negotiation can even be opened, and the EU has concerns over Turkey’s human rights record. If and when the negotiations finish, Turkey must get approval to join from each existing EU member. Some are opposed to, or planning to hold a referendum on, Turkish membership. Support for membership among the Turkish population has declined since 2010."
"What British Eurosceptics do not understand is that Turkey is no longer the country it was more than a decade ago, when it was eager to join the EU. In May [2016], Mr Erdogan told the EU, “We’ll go our way, you go yours.” "
Funny how all these "Turkey won't join" remarks only came about AFTER Turkish accession came into the debate. Find a speech by Cameron etc prior to Vote Leave making Turkish accession an issue saying that the Turks weren't welcome. Because until that point the opposite was being said.
Apart from the quote from Erdogan himself which I helpfully included for you to show that it wasn't just Britain or the EU side asserting that Turkish accession wasn't going to happen.
The quote from Erdogan was from May 2016 (well into the referendum campaign and after Turkey had become an issue) and was not about EU membership, it was about how to deal with terror.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
I disagree. It looks to me like Remain is done for. With this agreement, the EU has secured what it needed from Brexit Britain, so has no interest in doing anything other than playing with a straight bat on an FTA. It will set the parameters for a deal and we will decide what we want within those. Why would the EU want us back, at least on the terms we have now?
Correct - what it means is that future governments will have the choice to work closely with the EU or not - as they do now any other country - bringing benefits and consequences.
Almost like we've "taken back control"...
Almost. This is the beginnings of what will end up being a relatively decent final deal. I am happy if people think it is a UK victory, an EU one, or a win-win. The important thing is that we have moved on from the cliff edge scenario and we will end up with a Brexit that is less damaging - perhaps even far less damaging - than I had feared.
The fact is that it was in the interest of the UK government to pretend that Turkish accession was likely. But even before the attempted coup in Turkey it really wasn't.
Turkish membership of the EU is popular in exactly zero EU countries. And it is massively and overwhelmingly opposed in several countries.
It was in the interests of the UK government until it became an argument used by Vote Leave at which point suddenly we were supposed to know the government was lying all along. I have zero respect for that argument.
If someone were to say in the election to people who believe in privatised railways "Corbyn will nationalise the railways" then since Corbyn's stated policy is to nationalise the railways then that would not be dishonest.
I know somebody who bought a house in Istanbul in about 2005 as an investment on the basis of Turkey joining the EU. The idea being that once Turkey joins the EU the property prices in Istanbul would appreciate.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
I disagree. It looks to me like Remain is done for. With this agreement, the EU has secured what it needed from Brexit Britain, so has no interest in doing anything other than playing with a straight bat on an FTA. It will set the parameters for a deal and we will decide what we want within those. Why would the EU want us back, at least on the terms we have now?
Correct - what it means is that future governments will have the choice to work closely with the EU or not - as they do now any other country - bringing benefits and consequences.
Almost like we've "taken back control"...
Almost. This is the beginnings of what will end up being a relatively decent final deal. I am happy if people think it is a UK victory, an EU one, or a win-win. The important thing is that we have moved on from the cliff edge scenario and we will end up with a Brexit that is less damaging - perhaps even far less damaging - than I had feared.
It's a score draw hopefully.
And with no replay
Yep, there will be no replay. We are Brexiting without any doubt at all. I regret that, but we are where we are. And that is in a much better place than we might have been.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
I disagree. It looks to me like Remain is done for. With this agreement, the EU has secured what it needed from Brexit Britain, so has no interest in doing anything other than playing with a straight bat on an FTA. It will set the parameters for a deal and we will decide what we want within those. Why would the EU want us back, at least on the terms we have now?
Correct - what it means is that future governments will have the choice to work closely with the EU or not - as they do now any other country - bringing benefits and consequences.
Almost like we've "taken back control"...
Almost. This is the beginnings of what will end up being a relatively decent final deal. I am happy if people think it is a UK victory, an EU one, or a win-win. The important thing is that we have moved on from the cliff edge scenario and we will end up with a Brexit that is less damaging - perhaps even far less damaging - than I had feared.
It's a score draw hopefully.
And with no replay
Just left with the penalty shootout vs the Germans...
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
I disagree. It looks to me like Remain is done for. With this agreement, the EU has secured what it needed from Brexit Britain, so has no interest in doing anything other than playing with a straight bat on an FTA. It will set the parameters for a deal and we will decide what we want within those. Why would the EU want us back, at least on the terms we have now?
Correct - what it means is that future governments will have the choice to work closely with the EU or not - as they do now any other country - bringing benefits and consequences.
Almost like we've "taken back control"...
Almost. This is the beginnings of what will end up being a relatively decent final deal. I am happy if people think it is a UK victory, an EU one, or a win-win. The important thing is that we have moved on from the cliff edge scenario and we will end up with a Brexit that is less damaging - perhaps even far less damaging - than I had feared.
It's a score draw hopefully.
And with no replay
Yep, there will be no replay. We are Brexiting without any doubt at all. I regret that, but we are where we are. And that is in a much better place than we might have been.
Yes - well up to Britain to forge a new path - no more blaming it on Brussels for our politicians.
On Brexit; it seems to me that the reality of the Irish border issue has meant that the ideas about global Britain and free trade are going to go on the backburner for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the deal we are moving towards will mean we are subject to the rules of the single market, bound by its rules and dispute mechanisms, and in consequence heavily constrained in terms of what we are able to achieve in terms of trade relations with third countries.
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
The political threats come from two main directions:
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
I disagree. It looks to me like Remain is done for. With this agreement, the EU has secured what it needed from Brexit Britain, so has no interest in doing anything other than playing with a straight bat on an FTA. It will set the parameters for a deal and we will decide what we want within those. Why would the EU want us back, at least on the terms we have now?
Correct - what it means is that future governments will have the choice to work closely with the EU or not - as they do now any other country - bringing benefits and consequences.
Almost like we've "taken back control"...
Almost. This is the beginnings of what will end up being a relatively decent final deal. I am happy if people think it is a UK victory, an EU one, or a win-win. The important thing is that we have moved on from the cliff edge scenario and we will end up with a Brexit that is less damaging - perhaps even far less damaging - than I had feared.
It's a score draw hopefully.
And with no replay
Yep, there will be no replay. We are Brexiting without any doubt at all. I regret that, but we are where we are. And that is in a much better place than we might have been.
Yes - well up to Britain to forge a new path - no more blaming it on Brussels for our politicians.
History suggests otherwise. Politicians were blaming foreigners before the EU. They will blame them afterwards.
I expect as we have less influence in Europe the blaming will go up.
When was the fieldwork? Before or after today's deal?
Remember that on PB before today there was a lot of melancholy, though I have been optimistic especially this week along with others like Richard Nabavi and Nick Palmer and more (a group not made up of just leavers or Conservatives).
Which explains the mood on here, given that many PBers are Conservatives. I think there is reason to be more confident that a no deal is less likely after today though.
In contrast to the bell-ringing of pb, the public are sceptical that a deal will be done by March 2019:
twitter.com/YouGov/status/939176129113489408
Conservatives, however, are confident.
No exactly surprising, as ever time you turn the tv on it is wall to wall brexit talks are in trouble, no agreement etc etc etc.
That's a poll taken today.
We have seen repeatedly that polling shift takes time when news is announced and also this is still being billed as the pre-deal deal. WE HAve had a Year’s worth of negative reporting of the state of play.
I disagree. It looks to me like Remain is done for. With this agreement, the EU has secured what it needed from Brexit Britain, so has no interest in doing anything other than playing with a straight bat on an FTA. It will set the parameters for a deal and we will decide what we want within those. Why would the EU want us back, at least on the terms we have now?
Correct - what it means is that future governments will have the choice to work closely with the EU or not - as they do now any other country - bringing benefits and consequences.
Almost like we've "taken back control"...
Almost. This is the beginnings of what will end up being a relatively decent final deal. I am happy if people think it is a UK victory, an EU one, or a win-win. The important thing is that we have moved on from the cliff edge scenario and we will end up with a Brexit that is less damaging - perhaps even far less damaging - than I had feared.
It's a score draw hopefully.
And with no replay
Yep, there will be no replay. We are Brexiting without any doubt at all. I regret that, but we are where we are. And that is in a much better place than we might have been.
Yes - well up to Britain to forge a new path - no more blaming it on Brussels for our politicians.
History suggests otherwise. Politicians were blaming foreigners before the EU. They will blame them afterwards.
I expect as we have less influence in Europe the blaming will go up.
When was the fieldwork? Before or after today's deal?
Remember that on PB before today there was a lot of melancholy, though I have been optimistic especially this week along with others like Richard Nabavi and Nick Palmer and more (a group not made up of just leavers or Conservatives).
The fact is that it was in the interest of the UK government to pretend that Turkish accession was likely. But even before the attempted coup in Turkey it really wasn't.
Turkish membership of the EU is popular in exactly zero EU countries. And it is massively and overwhelmingly opposed in several countries.
It was in the interests of the UK government until it became an argument used by Vote Leave at which point suddenly we were supposed to know the government was lying all along. I have zero respect for that argument.
If someone were to say in the election to people who believe in privatised railways "Corbyn will nationalise the railways" then since Corbyn's stated policy is to nationalise the railways then that would not be dishonest.
I know somebody who bought a house in Istanbul in about 2005 as an investment on the basis of Turkey joining the EU. The idea being that once Turkey joins the EU the property prices in Istanbul would appreciate.
Then he was an idiot.
Turkey was only on the EU accession list because the US demanded it of the EEC back in the cold war. Continental Europeans have always regarded the EU (and its predecessor the EEC) as a White European Christians club.
For a long time they pretended this wasn't the case, and there were conferences, and chapters, etc. etc. etc. But for Turkey to join the EU required an accession treaty agreed by every national parliament in the EU (plus a couple of random regional ones). And with it being overwhelmingly opposed by the Eastern Europeans, the French, the Greeks, it was never really likely.
We told the Turks they could be members one day, because that made them more helpful. But it was fundamentally a lie. There was never a realistic chance that there wouldn't be at least half a dozen governments who would boost their ratings meaningfully by opposing their entry - when push came to shove.
So, there were two lies. The lies told by the British government to the Turks, telling them they could join. And the lies told by the Leave campaign, who could at least claim they were merely parroting the official position of the UK government.
“There's been a bit of a kerfuffle about that picture of Boris Johnson visiting Downing Street yesterday, which was tweeted by chief whip Julian Smith.
He said it was taken "last night" but some eagle-eyed observers spotted the clock on the No 10 mantelpiece, which indicated that it was actually the middle of the afternoon.
It has now been confirmed that the shot was taken at 16.30 GMT.
Does all this really matter? In the scheme of things probably not.
But given Tory fault-lines over Brexit and the feverish atmosphere in the party, the extent of the foreign secretary's involvement in the negotiations and at what stage he was briefed is fascinating to the kremlinologists.”
70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Wow.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is. We have to house statutory homeless families in hotels as far away as Luton and St Neots. Even those in temporary accommodation are often in totally unsuitable properties for the family size (too small or nowhere near the kids' school.)
If you walk through the underpasses in Central Milton Keynes there is the shameful sight of tents of people with nowhere else to go.
We are building new council houses. We've signed leases to provide high volume temporary accommodation in MK. We have invested in a £10m property fund. We've even commissioned new modular (i.e. flat-pack) housing to act as temporary housing while we deal with the spike we have.
And how does the Government help us? Any exception to right to buy? No chance. As you say, it's just fuelled a right to buy boom across our older estates. Are we included on the list of Councils who can lift their borrowing cap to invest in further houses? Nope (we genuinely suspect that it may be different if we had a Tory council)
I try to be as non-partisan as I can, but it is difficult here. The Government doesn't give any indication that it understands or really cares about our housing problems. And our Tory MPs are good at warm words but have showed no willingness to rock the boat or really cause a fuss. With hindsight, it's no real surprise they both nearly got kicked out in June when we all thought both MK seats were safe (and the Tories were all sent to Coventry ha ha)
Here you are - a family of four, including a disabled child, living in a single room. I challenge anyone to watch this and not be shocked.
The ignorance towards the problem of homelessness is absolutely stunning. Decent housing should be a basic right.
I was shocked to discover the other day that in my borough there are about 10,000 people in temporary accommodation - that's nearly 3% of the total population. It's likely that the % of children would be higher since single people are not usually eligible for council-provided temporary accommodation.
As it stands, Gibraltar will not enjoy the cushion a transition period, EU officials confirmed, and will drop out of the Single Market and the Customs Union when the UK leaves the bloc on 29 March 2019.
EU officials confirmed the Guardian’s story last month that an arrangement over the future of the rock needs to be struck between Spain and the UK, if the transition arrangement is to be extended to Gibraltar.
As it stands, Gibraltar will not enjoy the cushion a transition period, EU officials confirmed, and will drop out of the Single Market and the Customs Union when the UK leaves the bloc on 29 March 2019.
EU officials confirmed the Guardian’s story last month that an arrangement over the future of the rock needs to be struck between Spain and the UK, if the transition arrangement is to be extended to Gibraltar.
Is this why May is sucking up to the neo-Falange and supporting their oppression of Catalonia?
Why is this guy apologising ? He isn’t the one who was giving large with the racial slurs after putting their dirty feet on somebodies seat. If anything he should be the one getting an apology.
The fact is that it was in the interest of the UK government to pretend that Turkish accession was likely. But even before the attempted coup in Turkey it really wasn't.
Turkish membership of the EU is popular in exactly zero EU countries. And it is massively and overwhelmingly opposed in several countries.
It was in the interests of the UK government until it became an argument used by Vote Leave at which point suddenly we were supposed to know the government was lying all along. I have zero respect for that argument.
If someone were to say in the election to people who believe in privatised railways "Corbyn will nationalise the railways" then since Corbyn's stated policy is to nationalise the railways then that would not be dishonest.
I know somebody who bought a house in Istanbul in about 2005 as an investment on the basis of Turkey joining the EU. The idea being that once Turkey joins the EU the property prices in Istanbul would appreciate.
Then he was an idiot.
Turkey was only on the EU accession list because the US demanded it of the EEC back in the cold war. Continental Europeans have always regarded the EU (and its predecessor the EEC) as a White European Christians club.
For a long time they pretended this wasn't the case, and there were conferences, and chapters, etc. etc. etc. But for Turkey to join the EU required an accession treaty agreed by every national parliament in the EU (plus a couple of random regional ones). And with it being overwhelmingly opposed by the Eastern Europeans, the French, the Greeks, it was never really likely.
We told the Turks they could be members one day, because that made them more helpful. But it was fundamentally a lie. There was never a realistic chance that there wouldn't be at least half a dozen governments who would boost their ratings meaningfully by opposing their entry - when push came to shove.
So, there were two lies. The lies told by the British government to the Turks, telling them they could join. And the lies told by the Leave campaign, who could at least claim they were merely parroting the official position of the UK government.
Well, serve someone or other right for telling porkies, then. But it is odd that in the fallout from Erdogan's counter putsch with Merkel and co. sorrowfully saying that we had a beautiful thing going, but it's over, and Erdogan saying, you bastards, no mainstream commentator is pointing out what a carefully choreographed charade it all is. And it is odd that the Turks are the dumbos and fallguys in all this, given that they are the successors of the Ottoman Empire and have a fairish track record for diplomatic sophistication.
Left Wing Europhile scorns sensible deal. Hardly news.
@WilliamGlenn is a fairly right wing Europhile as I recall.
Soft Brexit with an ever growing transition period seems a reSonable outcome to me. Alignment to EU regs makes rejoining so much simpler. It wont be long before we want say in writing as well as just following the rules.
Left Wing Europhile scorns sensible deal. Hardly news.
@WilliamGlenn is a fairly right wing Europhile as I recall.
Soft Brexit with an ever growing transition period seems a reSonable outcome to me. Alignment to EU regs makes rejoining so much simpler. It wont be long before we want say in writing as well as just following the rules.
Yep, demographics and also the harsh reality of not having a say on single market stuff will do the trick. That's if Brexit happens at all. I think there is way too many slips along the way still.
70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Wow.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is. We have to house statutory homeless families in hotels as far away as Luton and St Neots. Even those in temporary accommodation are often in totally unsuitable properties for the family size (too small or nowhere near the kids' school.)
If you walk through the underpasses in Central Milton Keynes there is the shameful sight of tents of people with nowhere else to go.
We are building new council houses. We've signed leases to provide high volume temporary accommodation in MK. We have invested in a £10m property fund. We've even commissioned new modular (i.e. flat-pack) housing to act as temporary housing while we deal with the spike we have.
And how does the Government help us? Any exception to right to buy? No chance. As you say, it's just fuelled a right to buy boom across our older estates. Are we included on the list of Councils who can lift their borrowing cap to invest in further houses? Nope (we genuinely suspect that it may be different if we had a Tory council)
I try to be as non-partisan as I can, but it is difficult here. The Government doesn't give any indication that it understands or really cares about our housing problems. And our Tory MPs are good at warm words but have showed no willingness to rock the boat or really cause a fuss. With hindsight, it's no real surprise they both nearly got kicked out in June when we all thought both MK seats were safe (and the Tories were all sent to Coventry ha ha)
Here you are - a family of four, including a disabled child, living in a single room. I challenge anyone to watch this and not be shocked.
70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Wow.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is. We have to house statutory homeless families in hotels as far away as Luton and St Neots. Even those in temporary accommodation are often in totally unsuitable properties for the family size (too small or nowhere near the kids' school.)
If you walk through the underpasses in Central Milton Keynes there is the shameful sight of tents of people with nowhere else to go.
We are building new council houses. We've signed leases to provide high volume temporary accommodation in MK. We have invested in a £10m property fund. We've even commissioned new modular (i.e. flat-pack) housing to act as temporary housing while we deal with the spike we have.
And how does the Government help us? Any exception to right to buy? No chance. As you say, it's just fuelled a right to buy boom across our older estates. Are we included on the list of Councils who can lift their borrowing cap to invest in further houses? Nope (we genuinely suspect that it may be different if we had a Tory council)
I try to be as non-partisan as I can, but it is difficult here. The Government doesn't give any indication that it understands or really cares about our housing problems. And our Tory MPs are good at warm words but have showed no willingness to rock the boat or really cause a fuss. With hindsight, it's no real surprise they both nearly got kicked out in June when we all thought both MK seats were safe (and the Tories were all sent to Coventry ha ha)
Here you are - a family of four, including a disabled child, living in a single room. I challenge anyone to watch this and not be shocked.
70% of Right-to-buy council houses in Milton Keynes are now buy-to-lets.
Thatchers property owning democracy has eaten itself.
Wow.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is. We have to house statutory homeless families in hotels as far away as Luton and St Neots. Even those in temporary accommodation are often in totally unsuitable properties for the family size (too small or nowhere near the kids' school.)
If you walk through the underpasses in Central Milton Keynes there is the shameful sight of tents of people with nowhere else to go.
We are building new council houses. We've signed leases to provide high volume temporary accommodation in MK. We have invested in a £10m property fund. We've even commissioned new modular (i.e. flat-pack) housing to act as temporary housing while we deal with the spike we have.
And how does the Government help us? Any exception to right to buy? No chance. As you say, it's just fuelled a right to buy boom across our older estates. Are we included on the list of Councils who can lift their borrowing cap to invest in further houses? Nope (we genuinely suspect that it may be different if we had a Tory council)
I try to be as non-partisan as I can, but it is difficult here. The Government doesn't give any indication that it understands or really cares about our housing problems. And our Tory MPs are good at warm words but have showed no willingness to rock the boat or really cause a fuss. With hindsight, it's no real surprise they both nearly got kicked out in June when we all thought both MK seats were safe (and the Tories were all sent to Coventry ha ha)
Here you are - a family of four, including a disabled child, living in a single room. I challenge anyone to watch this and not be shocked.
Comments
https://etherscan.io/txs
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/ethereum-transactionfees.html
But otherwise, I agree with your comments. The easiest and best solution is to increase the length and security of tenancies, and to encourage the large scale build to let, disincentivising buy to let by inexperienced private investors, and encouraging private homeownership.
Merkel, Verhofstadt, Erdogan and everybody else have been behaving as if Turkey was on track to accession until post-EUref events last year. The claim that this was not happening, on a kind of "Wake up sheeple, you are just thinking what they want you to think" seems a bit tin hat and zerohedge to me. And if they were all just pretending, there's a lovely fable in there somewhere along the lines of crying wolf.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-takes-over-global-trade-stage/
The international trading system created by the U.S. after the Second World War has a new leader — the European Union.
The EU on Friday announced the conclusion of a landmark trade agreement with Japan — covering economies worth about 30 percent of the world’s GDP. That comes after scoring a trade deal with Vietnam in 2015 and Canada last year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-42270391/homeless-family-of-four-living-in-one-room
The ignorance towards the problem of homelessness is absolutely stunning. Decent housing should be a basic right.
I thought this was politically smart as it gave areas an incentive to support growth, and real rewards for doing so, paid on delivery not on promises.
In practice, most authorities with council housing stock have large volume ('000s) compared to the amount they can build each year, so simply funding based on number of council houses wouldn't incentivise growth as effectively.
Thatcher may have introduced it - but governments of both Labour and Conservative stripes have had decades to resolve these consequences.
The LibDems wouldn't even let us talk about the EU for five years. And that in spite of their Manifesto commitment.
So I guess it must have been Cameron and Osborne, doing their worst..... Who'd have thought, eh?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015
Whilst I'd love the Tories to do something about this - I really think it will require a Corbyn Labour government.
The most barefaced lie ever posted anywhere on the internet. That remark was nothing to do with Turkish accession to the EU. It is sadly becoming increasingly clear that chronic butthurt is frequently the precursor of outright dementia.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/erdogan-tells-eu-well-go-our-way-you-go-yours-over-anti-terror-laws-a7017906.html
"The Commission had studied Theresa May’s red lines & has concluded that the only option for the UK is a free-trade agreement modelled on the deal the EU struck with Canada in 2016"
That's interesting, because my first reaction this morning was to think that we were moving towards the Norway model. It's a second-hand quote and I don't have a source, but he's Brussels-based and usually accurate.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/dec/08/brexit-border-eu-theresa-may-juncker-tusk-markets-live
I think Barnier is correct, it will be 'Canada plus' with much haggling over how much 'plus' it will be. I would expect more on agriculture and something on financial services, but we shall see,
In return? Self determination. Sovereignty. control over immigration.
I think this is pretty much what people voted for.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/23/uk-likely-to-end-up-with-canadian-style-deal-warns-michel-barnier
The key thing is that this is based on the UK's previous red lines. They no longer exist - at least in the form they did previously.
- The Kipper types are already calling it a betrayal and Farage has even said we'd be better off as full members. This will chip away at support and if a second vote ever does happen, will weaken the pro-Brexit coalition significantly.
- The Tory Empire 2.0 types will perceive it as a huge defeat and will react in unpredictable ways.
I think it's all to play for for Remain.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/939082596390264832
It was restricting the ability of councils to use the money to build more houses that made Right to Buy a bad policy in the long term. If the money can be reinvested then it is a very good policy as wll as a great way to get people on the housing ladder.
*All these figures are taken from 'Promised you a Miracle' By Andy Beckett
Almost like we've "taken back control"...
Turkish membership of the EU is popular in exactly zero EU countries. And it is massively and overwhelmingly opposed in several countries.
And with no replay
If someone were to say in the election to people who believe in privatised railways "Corbyn will nationalise the railways" then since Corbyn's stated policy is to nationalise the railways then that would not be dishonest.
I know somebody who bought a house in Istanbul in about 2005 as an investment on the basis of Turkey joining the EU. The idea being that once Turkey joins the EU the property prices in Istanbul would appreciate.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/939176129113489408
Conservatives, however, are confident.
Just left with the penalty shootout vs the Germans...
I expect as we have less influence in Europe the blaming will go up.
Remember that on PB before today there was a lot of melancholy, though I have been optimistic especially this week along with others like Richard Nabavi and Nick Palmer and more (a group not made up of just leavers or Conservatives).
5435 UK adults were questioned on 8 Dec 2017.
Turkey was only on the EU accession list because the US demanded it of the EEC back in the cold war. Continental Europeans have always regarded the EU (and its predecessor the EEC) as a White European Christians club.
For a long time they pretended this wasn't the case, and there were conferences, and chapters, etc. etc. etc. But for Turkey to join the EU required an accession treaty agreed by every national parliament in the EU (plus a couple of random regional ones). And with it being overwhelmingly opposed by the Eastern Europeans, the French, the Greeks, it was never really likely.
We told the Turks they could be members one day, because that made them more helpful. But it was fundamentally a lie. There was never a realistic chance that there wouldn't be at least half a dozen governments who would boost their ratings meaningfully by opposing their entry - when push came to shove.
So, there were two lies. The lies told by the British government to the Turks, telling them they could join. And the lies told by the Leave campaign, who could at least claim they were merely parroting the official position of the UK government.
He said it was taken "last night" but some eagle-eyed observers spotted the clock on the No 10 mantelpiece, which indicated that it was actually the middle of the afternoon.
It has now been confirmed that the shot was taken at 16.30 GMT.
Does all this really matter? In the scheme of things probably not.
But given Tory fault-lines over Brexit and the feverish atmosphere in the party, the extent of the foreign secretary's involvement in the negotiations and at what stage he was briefed is fascinating to the kremlinologists.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241021
EU officials confirmed the Guardian’s story last month that an arrangement over the future of the rock needs to be struck between Spain and the UK, if the transition arrangement is to be extended to Gibraltar.
Why is this guy apologising ? He isn’t the one who was giving large with the racial slurs after putting their dirty feet on somebodies seat. If anything he should be the one getting an apology.
Soft Brexit with an ever growing transition period seems a reSonable outcome to me. Alignment to EU regs makes rejoining so much simpler. It wont be long before we want say in writing as well as just following the rules.
24% of Labour voters and 31% of LDs are also confident of a deal
In any case Hammond announced extra money to build new homes, including social homes, in the Budget