Possibly because they are more numerous and/or serious? :teresa:

 

she's not running the country :teresa:

she's not running the country :teresa:

 

Thank goodness!

Possibly because they are more numerous and/or serious? :teresa:

So you think it's more serious for the Shadow Home Secretary to get a figure wrong than the actual Chancellor?

Her gaffes were HARDLY more seriou - a fudged number one or two times does not equate to Tory mps voting animals can't feel emotions, um animals include humans lol, or the chancellor getting HI numbers wrong, or BJ getting a woman a doubled sentence, or Pritti Prattel having secret meetings with a foreign power!!

 

Hmm so getting two facts off the top of her hwad does not really compare... I think sexism and bias have more to do with it.

Her gaffes were HARDLY more seriou - a fudged number one or two times does not equate to Tory mps voting animals can't feel emotions, um animals include humans lol, or the chancellor getting HI numbers wrong,

 

or BJ getting a woman a doubled sentence,

 

perhaps you should have though about that abbreviation a little more. :lol:

 

 

:lol:

 

I didn't even think! It was just faster typing.

Maybe I just feel the urge to play Devil's Advocate with Phil Hammond as I have had a soft spot for him since it was pointed out to me that he looks like how Brett Anderson will look 15 years from now, but there is the suggestion that Phil Hammond has been misquoted, with his quote about no unemployed people being taken out of context, according to Independent journalist John Rentoul.

 

According to his Tweetstorm, when Hammond said that there were "no unemployed people", he was saying there were no unemployed shorthand typists as the result of PCs taking over the workplace. Admittedly, it may appear that this was unclear on the show (I've only read the transcript, and not re-watched the programme), but have a look at the link, re-watch the interview, and I'll let you decide for yourselves if it is a fair or unfair characterisation of his comments.

That's how I read it, which is why I waffled on at length about typists..

Maybe I just feel the urge to play Devil's Advocate with Phil Hammond as I have had a soft spot for him since it was pointed out to me that he looks like how Brett Anderson will look 15 years from now, but there is the suggestion that Phil Hammond has been misquoted, with his quote about no unemployed people being taken out of context, according to Independent journalist John Rentoul.

 

According to his Tweetstorm, when Hammond said that there were "no unemployed people", he was saying there were no unemployed shorthand typists as the result of PCs taking over the workplace. Admittedly, it may appear that this was unclear on the show (I've only read the transcript, and not re-watched the programme), but have a look at the link, re-watch the interview, and I'll let you decide for yourselves if it is a fair or unfair characterisation of his comments.

I'll consider having sympathy for him when the Tories accept that Gordon Brown didn't intend to claim that he had saved the world.

Only £3 billion to distort the property market, benefit existing homeowners and screw over young people even more:

 

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/933358563396849664

 

BARGAIN. (U-Turn imminent)

Update: OBR have now said there won't be a surplus until *2031* on current trends.

 

!!!

oh it's worse than that. they "set aside" 44billion to "boost" house-building. What that means is more cash for existing builders at the moment. It all goes to them as a sort of bribe to get building, but it just increases their profits at tax payer expense. There is no indication whether this, or cheaper loans to councils to pay to build houses (which they do already anyway as much as they can on low-borrowing-rates), or actual paying for bricks to be laid directly by by the government is what is intended (vague? The Tories?).

 

So, unless it's the latter, higher price prices then, both existing and newer. Larger debt burdens. Bit thick, Tories.

Loans to developers to get problematic sites developed can be quite effective - the Greater Manchester Housing Fund has faced criticism for being overly focused on supporting big apartment schemes in and around the city centre (which is somewhat fair) but most accounts say it has made a notable difference and the money will make its way back to the public purse provided it's a loan and not just a grant.

 

But yes, allowing councils to more easily borrow cheaply to build genuinely affordable homes would be more effective.

 

The housing crisis is effectively two crises, the first being that we haven't built enough units in a very long time and the second being that those which have been built have been purely on the market's terms and haven't been affordable enough to anyone at the lower end of the income bracket. You may as well try and kill two birds with one stone and let councils build again.

Perhaps this forum's members should be running the country, as we all seem to know better than the gov't, what needs to be done... ;)

Perhaps this forum's members should be running the country, as we all seem to know better than the gov't, what needs to be done... ;)

 

That wouldn't be difficult. A goldfish in a bowl would have more idea what to do.

 

Plus, some of us work in Local Government, and in property, and know what's going on. Did you know, for instance, that there is a mini-boom going on in the prices of industrial/commercial properties (another bubble ready to burst) because the gov has made cheap loans available and desperate Councils short on cash by millions and millions are using it as a way of bringing in extra cash? So they are bidding against one another to buy market schemes. Smart Councils know the risks and weigh carefully the likelihood of profit on these schemes. Those who got rid of Property staff and haven't a clue are just diving in hoping for the best. So they may or may not make a profit, and in consequence have a long-term debt hanging over them.

 

My Council is building as many Council houses as they can on pockets of open space, but they still get sold under Right To Buy faster than they are replaced. Most housing schemes are for the private sector (even on Council-land) because they won't get the cash to develop otherwise. Lots of these properties become second-homes for rich people and cash cows for foreign investors. Take a look on the Land Registry website/Private Eye website and marvel at how many buildings in your area are owned by companies avoiding tax.....

Today's Mail has a headline claiming that the changes to stamp duty could benefit one million people. The Office For Budget Responsibility says it could benefit as few as 3,500 per year. Can somebody explain where the figure of one million came from?

The number of people who will see a house price rise? That is one of the Mails big 5 issues along with things that cause/cure cancer, being racist, princess Diana, Madeline McCann.

Be fair. The Express obsesses about the last two far more than the Mail.

Today's Mail has a headline claiming that the changes to stamp duty could benefit one million people. The Office For Budget Responsibility says it could benefit as few as 3,500 per year. Can somebody explain where the figure of one million came from?

 

Err, the Mail? :lol:

Err, the Mail? :lol:

Did they explain the figure at all? In a typical year there are 150,000 - 200,000 first-time buyers.