Tuesday 15 July 2017

[HindleA]

Well aware it was a repeated undermining attempt/dismissal,which is far more rude than calling someone female (or indeed male)genitalia,but above all rather silly,I just carry on regardless.

[adam]

Yes a good piece, but we should remember it's one (influential) author's point of view not an agreed EU position.

It is, and a lot of things are up in the air, but it's an influential author using quite a formal publication to repeat and reinforce what European governments have been consistently saying and continue to consistently say. This sounds much ruder than I intend, but there is a point at which this becomes 'I see no ships'.

[SpinningHugo]

Couple oof interesting things on Brexit.

This just RT'd by the commission's deputy negotiator, rebuts Blair's position

http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?cat_id=4&pub_id=7865" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have we actually established yet whether article 50 is unilaterally revocable or not? Would surely colour all of this very differently if it is. I'd really love to know what the lawyers are advising Theresa May on this. Without knowing people's beliefs on revocability, there's a missing element to understanding everyone's stance.
If we can just change our mind, it gives Theresa May rather more cards than would currently appear.

The Commission have now said it isn't unilaterally revocable

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ME ... 001_en.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2016 ... rticle-50/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is an argument that the duty of good faith co-operation between member states would require others to agree to deferral if we can come up with a good reason to do so.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Those who failed Sarah Reed must be held to account

[AngryAsWell]

lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

[Willow904]

Of course, the Commission believing it isn't unilaterally revocable doesn't definitively tell us what Theresa May thinks. We are, after all, talking about a bunch of muppets that can't even manage to complete the electrification of a single rail line.

Still, it does look like we're pretty stuffed on remaining in the EU proper. I pretty much accept the point from the commission that now we have de facto left the likely only way back in is through the front door and if howsillyofme thinks convincing the British public to accept the four freedoms as I suggest is almost impossible, goodness knows how you convince them to accept the Euro.

[PorFavor]

lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

And on the TV news - where, unfortunately, Sajid Javid had to be endured.

[AngryAsWell]

Subscription so not all available but you can get the bases of it from what can be read :

"French legal action over vote ban moves forward

More than 10 Britons living in the EU, including votes campaigner and Second World War veteran Harry Shindler, have volunteered to join legal action by a French barrister against the Brexit referendum.

Many of them agreed after a group of academics and professionals based in the UK and France, called ‘Action for Europe’, organised a crowdfunding campaign having heard of Bordeaux avocat Julien Fouchet’s bid to challenge the Brexit vote. They raised money to pay legal fees for 10 participants.

Mr Fouchet’s case, which The Con­nexion broke news of in English-language media in April, aims to show that exclusion from the referendum ..."

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French- ... es-forward" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/call ... ment-fraud" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Press release
Call for more industry action to stop recruitment fraud


Says the Government that sanctions people that don't apply for enough international spy vacancies on Universal Jobmatch.

[Willow904]

lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

Leasehold is an antiquated hangover that should have slowly died out as old leases lapsed or were bought out through collective freeholds.

As such, I wouldn't call what has been happening with new build houses "a leasehold problem" as such. It is really a mis-selling scandal on a par with the endowment mortgage rip off from the late 80s early 90s which to my mind can only have happened with the acquiescence of unscrupulous solicitors, who should be urgently investigated by the Legal Services Board. It is never in the buyers interests to not acquire the freehold when purchasing a house and their solicitor should have advised them very strongly against doing so. The fact that property developers have been offering to pay legal fees for buyers but only if they agree to use a solicitor recommended by them is the thing that should be outlawed. Indeed, given the conflict of interest I'm mightily surprised such a practise isn't already against the law. Was really shocked to have learned this has been happening. We truly live in the land of spivs.

[Willow904]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/call ... ment-fraud


Press release
Call for more industry action to stop recruitment fraud


Says the Government that sanctions people that don't apply for enough international spy vacancies on Universal Jobmatch.

I really pine for the days of the job centre where you could go to find real, vetted local jobs, rather than run the gauntlet of the classifieds. In today's world of first names only and mobile phone numbers, trying to get a real job means taking the kind of risks with strangers your mother warned you about. Getting a sanction for not applying for "an amazing opportunity, to earn £££'s call Spike on 666" shouldn't happen but I fear it does.

[SpinningHugo]

lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

Leasehold is an antiquated hangover that should have slowly died out as old leases lapsed or were bought out through collective freeholds.

As such, I wouldn't call what has been happening with new build houses "a leasehold problem" as such. It is really a mis-selling scandal on a par with the endowment mortgage rip off from the late 80s early 90s which to my mind can only have happened with the acquiescence of unscrupulous solicitors, who should be urgently investigated by the Legal Services Board. It is never in the buyers interests to not acquire the freehold when purchasing a house and their solicitor should have advised them very strongly against doing so. The fact that property developers have been offering to pay legal fees for buyers but only if they agree to use a solicitor recommended by them is the thing that should be outlawed. Indeed, given the conflict of interest I'm mightily surprised such a practise isn't already against the law. Was really shocked to have learned this has been happening. We truly live in the land of spivs.

I don't think that is right.

Leasehold allows positive covenants to run with the land, which is not true of freehold.

It also allows for estates to have collective communal provisions that are paid for (compulsorily) by everyone.

Some developers have no doubt abused it, but there is nothing antiquated about it necessarily.

[HindleA]

https://www.lovemoney.com/news/27586/co ... -leasehold" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Why commonhold, the alternative to leasehold, has failed

[AngryAsWell]

lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

Leasehold is an antiquated hangover that should have slowly died out as old leases lapsed or were bought out through collective freeholds.

As such, I wouldn't call what has been happening with new build houses "a leasehold problem" as such. It is really a mis-selling scandal on a par with the endowment mortgage rip off from the late 80s early 90s which to my mind can only have happened with the acquiescence of unscrupulous solicitors, who should be urgently investigated by the Legal Services Board. It is never in the buyers interests to not acquire the freehold when purchasing a house and their solicitor should have advised them very strongly against doing so. The fact that property developers have been offering to pay legal fees for buyers but only if they agree to use a solicitor recommended by them is the thing that should be outlawed. Indeed, given the conflict of interest I'm mightily surprised such a practise isn't already against the law. Was really shocked to have learned this has been happening. We truly live in the land of spivs.

I don't think that is right.

Leasehold allows positive covenants to run with the land, which is not true of freehold.

It also allows for estates to have collective communal provisions that are paid for (compulsorily) by everyone.

Some developers have no doubt abused it, but there is nothing antiquated about it necessarily.

Whats been happening in recent years is nothing like the original principals. Lady on R5's program was told she could buy lease on her new build in a year or 2 but found it had been sold and the terms applied extortionate, like having to ask permission that cost £300 to change her carpets! and £3000 to apply for permission to have a conservatory extension. The rent rises every 5 years and can go to over £2000 per year.

[NonOxCol]

Yes a good piece, but we should remember it's one (influential) author's point of view not an agreed EU position.

It is, and a lot of things are up in the air, but it's an influential author using quite a formal publication to repeat and reinforce what European governments have been consistently saying and continue to consistently say. This sounds much ruder than I intend, but there is a point at which this becomes 'I see no ships'.

On that note:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 58586.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I recommend looking at the comments, to see some of the meatheads to whom politicians of all stripes are now pandering.

I think it will take someone with the moral courage and acuity of Abraham Lincoln to turn this country round by the time this farcical race is run. And we don't have anyone at all I can see.

[Temulkar]

lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

Leasehold is an antiquated hangover that should have slowly died out as old leases lapsed or were bought out through collective freeholds.

As such, I wouldn't call what has been happening with new build houses "a leasehold problem" as such. It is really a mis-selling scandal on a par with the endowment mortgage rip off from the late 80s early 90s which to my mind can only have happened with the acquiescence of unscrupulous solicitors, who should be urgently investigated by the Legal Services Board. It is never in the buyers interests to not acquire the freehold when purchasing a house and their solicitor should have advised them very strongly against doing so. The fact that property developers have been offering to pay legal fees for buyers but only if they agree to use a solicitor recommended by them is the thing that should be outlawed. Indeed, given the conflict of interest I'm mightily surprised such a practise isn't already against the law. Was really shocked to have learned this has been happening. We truly live in the land of spivs.

I don't think that is right.

Leasehold allows positive covenants to run with the land, which is not true of freehold.

It also allows for estates to have collective communal provisions that are paid for (compulsorily) by everyone.

Some developers have no doubt abused it, but there is nothing antiquated about it necessarily.

You really are the champion of every failed political and economic orthodoxy for the last thirty years.

[SpinningHugo]

Whats been happening in recent years is nothing like the original principals. Lady on R5's program was told she could buy lease on her new build in a year or 2 but found it had been sold and the terms applied extortionate, like having to ask permission that cost £300 to change her carpets! and £3000 to apply for permission to have a conservatory extension. The rent rises every 5 years and can go to over £2000 per year.

Absolutely. So what is required is regulation to stop consumers being ripped off (although my advice is still read the terms and conditions).

[Willow904]

lease hold problem being explained on R5 now

Leasehold is an antiquated hangover that should have slowly died out as old leases lapsed or were bought out through collective freeholds.

As such, I wouldn't call what has been happening with new build houses "a leasehold problem" as such. It is really a mis-selling scandal on a par with the endowment mortgage rip off from the late 80s early 90s which to my mind can only have happened with the acquiescence of unscrupulous solicitors, who should be urgently investigated by the Legal Services Board. It is never in the buyers interests to not acquire the freehold when purchasing a house and their solicitor should have advised them very strongly against doing so. The fact that property developers have been offering to pay legal fees for buyers but only if they agree to use a solicitor recommended by them is the thing that should be outlawed. Indeed, given the conflict of interest I'm mightily surprised such a practise isn't already against the law. Was really shocked to have learned this has been happening. We truly live in the land of spivs.

I don't think that is right.

Leasehold allows positive covenants to run with the land, which is not true of freehold.

It also allows for estates to have collective communal provisions that are paid for (compulsorily) by everyone.

Some developers have no doubt abused it, but there is nothing antiquated about it necessarily.

Surely collective freeholds do the same thing, but in a more modern, less feudal way?

Besides, the whole point of my comment was that it isn't leaseholds as such or even the specific terms of the leaseholds that is the real problem in this current case, but the mis-selling of leaseholds and the rather worrying conflict of interests of a solicitor who is representing a buyer whilst being paid by a seller.

Doubling ground rents are a very poor deal for buyers, why were buyers not warned in no uncertain terms by their solicitor? Anyone who comprehended the contract properly would likely not sign it. How did these buyers with the leaseholds with doubling ground rents manage to get mortgages? We should already have the necessary checks and balances within our system to prevent such mis-selling. Instead of shrugging shoulders and saying 'oh well, now its in the national press I guess we'll have to be seen to be doing something to stop this in future" the government should be asking a lot of hard questions about how this was ever possible in the first place.

[AngryAsWell]

Whats been happening in recent years is nothing like the original principals. Lady on R5's program was told she could buy lease on her new build in a year or 2 but found it had been sold and the terms applied extortionate, like having to ask permission that cost £300 to change her carpets! and £3000 to apply for permission to have a conservatory extension. The rent rises every 5 years and can go to over £2000 per year.

Absolutely. So what is required is regulation to stop consumers being ripped off (although my advice is still read the terms and conditions).

The conditions were spread over different pages under different categories and even the conveyancing solicitors missed them. This really is a rip off scandal.
Some builders sold the leases to hedge funds.
R5 lady can't sell her house because the terms on it are so onerous no one will buy it. Irony is that it's her (and others on the estate) campaign that have made others aware and effectively made their homes unsalable.

Edit to stop things "spreeding"

[SpinningHugo]

Whats been happening in recent years is nothing like the original principals. Lady on R5's program was told she could buy lease on her new build in a year or 2 but found it had been sold and the terms applied extortionate, like having to ask permission that cost £300 to change her carpets! and £3000 to apply for permission to have a conservatory extension. The rent rises every 5 years and can go to over £2000 per year.

Absolutely. So what is required is regulation to stop consumers being ripped off (although my advice is still read the terms and conditions).

The conditions were spreed over different pages under different categories and even the conveyancing solicitors missed them. This really is a rip off scandal.
Some builders sold the leases to hedge funds.
R5 lady can't sell her house because the terms on it are so onerous no one will buy it. Irony is that it's her (and others on the estate) campaign that have made others aware and effectively made their homes unsalable.

I accept all that.

So regulate the terms.

[SpinningHugo]

Surely collective freeholds do the same thing, but in a more modern, less feudal way?

No. You can't have positive covenants running with freeholds. There is nothing more "feudal" about leasehold estates than freehold.

English law allows the divisibility of estates along temporal lines, as well as ones of physical space.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/leasehold-property" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


https://www.housingadviceni.org/leaseho ... round-rent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://www.lease-advice.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

Whats been happening in recent years is nothing like the original principals. Lady on R5's program was told she could buy lease on her new build in a year or 2 but found it had been sold and the terms applied extortionate, like having to ask permission that cost £300 to change her carpets! and £3000 to apply for permission to have a conservatory extension. The rent rises every 5 years and can go to over £2000 per year.

Absolutely. So what is required is regulation to stop consumers being ripped off (although my advice is still read the terms and conditions).

The conditions were spreed over different pages under different categories and even the conveyancing solicitors missed them. This really is a rip off scandal.
Some builders sold the leases to hedge funds.
R5 lady can't sell her house because the terms on it are so onerous no one will buy it. Irony is that it's her (and others on the estate) campaign that have made others aware and effectively made their homes unsalable.

When it's their actual job to read and understand every single word of a lease I find it very hard to believe the conveyancing solicitors "missed" important terms and conditions. Which is why I feel this is like the endowment mortgage mis-selling scandal as there appears to be a collusion here to rip off unsuspecting buyers, rather than just greedy property developers out for what they can get. Legal advice is regulated, mortgage lenders have rules to adhere to. For a buyer to be so poorly advised best practice, at the very least, has been ignored by several parties, in my very humble and not at all expert opinion. My impression being based solely on an extremely long afternoon spent in a solicitors office as they went through and explained every single tiny obligation and consequence of the leasehold contract I was about to sign (to this day I still remember that a clothes line in view of the road was prohibited!). A solicitor who has "missed" a doubling ground rent deserves to be struck off. More likely, they mentioned it casually in passing without expanding on the consequences, mindful of the further work they would get from the property developer if they managed not to put the buyer off.

[citizenJA]

HOSM, Hugo, me how about we let others get a word in edgeways today and discuss something else?

It is the issue of the day, dwarfing everything else.

There is another board I know of where more comfortable things are discussed, and where this, the biggest one, is ignored, because uncomfortable.

My friend, PaulFromYorkshire, has responded well to your post
Know this
Flythenest is a worthwhile place politically active, compassionate people come exchanging ideas and information
Time, energy and heart devoted to this place is treasure I don't take for granted
The exchanges between people are often contentious because politics is too
I draw it mild and take care avoiding needless, deliberate pain with words and actions
I like and love people, I can't get on without the help of others
We're each vitally important, that's not something mousy I repeat like an article of faith, it's a fact of life
I must cultivate and care for what I want to grow

[SpinningHugo]

When it's their actual job to read and understand every single word of a lease I find it very hard to believe the conveyancing solicitors "missed" important terms and conditions. Which is why I feel this is like the endowment mortgage mis-selling scandal as there appears to be a collusion here to rip off unsuspecting buyers, rather than just greedy property developers out for what they can get. Legal advice is regulated, mortgage lenders have rules to adhere to. For a buyer to be so poorly advised best practice, at the very least, has been ignored by several parties, in my very humble and not at all expert opinion. My impression being based solely on an extremely long afternoon spent in a solicitors office as they went through and explained every single tiny obligation and consequence of the leasehold contract I was about to sign (to this day I still remember that a clothes line in view of the road was prohibited!). A solicitor who has "missed" a doubling ground rent deserves to be struck off. More likely, they mentioned it casually in passing without expanding on the consequences, mindful of the further work they would get from the property developer if they managed not to put the buyer off.

The problem is that most consumers (and I am one) are idiots who, even when these things are explained to them, press on regardless. Which is why you need to regulate terms to protect them.

[AngryAsWell]

@Willow
Agree & think some prosecutions and strike off needed - only realised when reading yours that the solicitors doing the conveyancing were also acting for the builders.

[citizenJA]

Good-afternoon, everyone

[AngryAsWell]

When it's their actual job to read and understand every single word of a lease I find it very hard to believe the conveyancing solicitors "missed" important terms and conditions. Which is why I feel this is like the endowment mortgage mis-selling scandal as there appears to be a collusion here to rip off unsuspecting buyers, rather than just greedy property developers out for what they can get. Legal advice is regulated, mortgage lenders have rules to adhere to. For a buyer to be so poorly advised best practice, at the very least, has been ignored by several parties, in my very humble and not at all expert opinion. My impression being based solely on an extremely long afternoon spent in a solicitors office as they went through and explained every single tiny obligation and consequence of the leasehold contract I was about to sign (to this day I still remember that a clothes line in view of the road was prohibited!). A solicitor who has "missed" a doubling ground rent deserves to be struck off. More likely, they mentioned it casually in passing without expanding on the consequences, mindful of the further work they would get from the property developer if they managed not to put the buyer off.

The problem is that most consumers (and I am one) are idiots who, even when these things are explained to them, press on regardless. Which is why you need to regulate terms to protect them.

What about doing something for those already affected? I take your point about future regulation, but what about compensation ?

[HindleA]

@cja it was clearly another attempt to remove the inconvenient/dismiss people and their interests,concerns,opinions as irrelevant;to discourage/undermine and implant seed in others to view the same way.The problem with amateur psychological warfarists is that they sometimes meet experts.

[Willow904]

Surely collective freeholds do the same thing, but in a more modern, less feudal way?

No. You can't have positive covenants running with freeholds. There is nothing more "feudal" about leasehold estates than freehold.

English law allows the divisibility of estates along temporal lines, as well as ones of physical space.

Why the concern about positive covenants? Collective freeholds exist, so clearly fulfil the role required of them and surely the occupiers being in control of the management of the building they live in is less "feudal" than them paying money to a distant landlord to (maybe) do that job.

[AnatolyKasparov]

One current topic - "posted workers".

Something I have been vaguely aware of, but learned more of yesterday - not least due to an excellent Twitter contribution from Dan Davies (who can't really be described as a Corbyn apologist, certainly not when it comes to EU matters)

It is plainly wrong to imply that immigration/free movement is a major reason for lowering wages across the board - and yes, JC's language here on Sunday was decidedly sub-optimal.

But equally it seems clear that in certain niche areas, there may indeed be a problem.

"Posted workers" are particularly a prominent feature in Wales it would appear - Tubby?

[Willow904]

When it's their actual job to read and understand every single word of a lease I find it very hard to believe the conveyancing solicitors "missed" important terms and conditions. Which is why I feel this is like the endowment mortgage mis-selling scandal as there appears to be a collusion here to rip off unsuspecting buyers, rather than just greedy property developers out for what they can get. Legal advice is regulated, mortgage lenders have rules to adhere to. For a buyer to be so poorly advised best practice, at the very least, has been ignored by several parties, in my very humble and not at all expert opinion. My impression being based solely on an extremely long afternoon spent in a solicitors office as they went through and explained every single tiny obligation and consequence of the leasehold contract I was about to sign (to this day I still remember that a clothes line in view of the road was prohibited!). A solicitor who has "missed" a doubling ground rent deserves to be struck off. More likely, they mentioned it casually in passing without expanding on the consequences, mindful of the further work they would get from the property developer if they managed not to put the buyer off.

The problem is that most consumers (and I am one) are idiots who, even when these things are explained to them, press on regardless. Which is why you need to regulate terms to protect them.

I'm not against regulation. Doubling ground rents don't appear to perform any useful function so could certainly be banned to stop this specific rip off happening in future, but what of the next scandal? We have regulations covering the ethical behaviour of experts who advise consumers in complex matters. If the government is allowed to focus on specifics, the failure of these regulations to prevent poor legal advice in these cases won't be addressed. And what of the apparent conflict of interests that seem to underpin these cases? Banning future new build leasehold sales draws a line under this sorry saga but rather lets the unscrupulous players who profited from this scam off the hook to my mind. Not good enough.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Away from the EU for a moment, Abi Wilks certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons yesterday. God bless her

[Willow904]

@SpinningHugo
I can just about accept what you're saying about the "idiot consumer" generally (we're all fond of the old concept of caveat emptor), but not on those incidences that included doubling ground rents specifically. The buyer may be fool enough to purchase under such terms, even if known and understood (though this seems extremely unlikely) but how were they able to secure a mortgage against such a lease? I'm off to lunch now, but the mortgage angle of the story interests me, if anyone has any thoughts. Surely if the doubling ground rent rather obviously make the property unsellable in future, a mortgage lender should have declined the loan on the basis that the asking price was not covered by the value of the asset?

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... old-market" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Open consultation
Tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ing-market" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

Away from the EU for a moment, Abi Wilks certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons yesterday. God bless her

Unfortunately, it was a ridiculous thing to suggest and discredited her. Oh well.

Toynbee's suggestion of treating inherited wealth as income (and taxable as such) is a serious suggestion. Because she is serious.

[PorFavor]

Gianni Pittella, the leader of the socialist group in the European parliament, said:

I’m sure British citizens will be enthusiastic to go from the EU high standard control over chicken and food to the chlorinated, full of hormones, US chicken.

It is just a further indigestible gift from Tories and their Brexit. Luckily for British citizens, UK won’t be allowed to strike new free trade agreements as long as the Brexit process has not reached a conclusion.

This news reinforces why the EU will eventually need to have checks and controls on goods coming from the UK. We won’t accept a race to the bottom on standards.
(Politics Live, Guardian - my emphasis)

Pick the bones out of that!

[SpinningHugo]

@SpinningHugo
I can just about accept what you're saying about the "idiot consumer" generally (we're all fond of the old concept of caveat emptor), but not on those incidences that included doubling ground rents specifically. The buyer may be fool enough to purchase under such terms, even if known and understood (though this seems extremely unlikely) but how were they able to secure a mortgage against such a lease? I'm off to lunch now, but the mortgage angle of the story interests me, if anyone has any thoughts. Surely if the doubling ground rent rather obviously make the property unsellable in future, a mortgage lender should have declined the loan on the basis that the asking price was not covered by the value of the asset?

They shouldn't. I suspect there is more to the story.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Away from the EU for a moment, Abi Wilks certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons yesterday. God bless her

Unfortunately, it was a ridiculous thing to suggest and discredited her. Oh well.

Toynbee's suggestion of treating inherited wealth as income (and taxable as such) is a serious suggestion. Because she is serious.

It was a bit of kite flying, the piece explicitly said as much.

But this is the sort of thing the right have done well since Thatcher's time - suggest "outrageous" ideas that nonetheless get people thinking in the way they want them to.

By way of contrast, ever since the traumatic 1983 experience much of the left has been far too bothered with appearing "sensible" and "respectable". Understandable to start with, but over time this became its own stifling orthodoxy which suppressed debate and even circumcscribed language. Its a major reason for the intellectual stagnation and subsequent collapse of the "political centre" and the resultant rise of Corbyn(ism)

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


‘I can pedal faster than a man can run’ – how bikes are changing the dynamic on Africa's roads

[HindleA]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/us/h ... d=tw-share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"When Health law isn't enough,the desperate line up off tents"

[SpinningHugo]

But this is the sort of thing the right have done well since Thatcher's time - suggest "outrageous" ideas that nonetheless get people thinking in the way they want them to.

I don't think that is right at all. Propose dumb ill-thought through things, and people will assume you're the kind of person who puts forward dumb ill-thought through things. The Graun has plenty of columnists fulfilling that role, which is why its reputation is as it is.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We thought the war was lost': readers' stories of Dunkirk

[Willow904]

An interesting sidebar to the new build leasehold story, which may explain in part my mortgage lender question:

http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/prope ... 10361.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Leasehold Advisory Service quango estimates that developers earn £300 million to £500 million a year from selling freeholds on to investors, often anonymous, who can then hide their beneficial interest behind nominee directors. Leasehold rules may well be raised as an issue by the main parties in the impending general election, with the focus likely to be on Help to Buy.

Taxpayers have spent millions underwriting loans, only to find that they have helped pitch a generation of first-time buyers into unwanted longterm tenancies — which is what leasehold means.

Not such a risk for mortgage lenders when part of the loan is insured by taxpayers?

[citizenJA]

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, has turned down a paid advisory role with the law firm that took the government to court over article 50, after criticism of the potential conflict of interest. Mishcon de Reya said on Monday that it was in talks with Starmer, who was director of public prosecutions before he entered parliament, about a position.

Starmer had previously advised the firm while in parliament, but ended the relationship when he became shadow Brexit secretary in October.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eya-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

I'll be back after awhile

[HindleA]

PF your mission for today,should you wish to accept it(given you've mastered the youtube link thing)is to take over responsibility in tenuous or otherwisewise such links to songs/etc from me.I am passing the baton on.I am tired of this arduous task to be honest.In any case it gets in the way of linking to the Guardian before Hugo,which he never does,not being an arch hypocrite,or anything.(stop it,it's too easy,I can't help it,even so)

[StephenDolan]

Away from the EU for a moment, Abi Wilks certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons yesterday. God bless her

Indeed. Many a case of rabies was reported

[PorFavor]

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, has turned down a paid advisory role with the law firm that took the government to court over article 50, after criticism of the potential conflict of interest. Mishcon de Reya said on Monday that it was in talks with Starmer, who was director of public prosecutions before he entered parliament, about a position.

Starmer had previously advised the firm while in parliament, but ended the relationship when he became shadow Brexit secretary in October.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eya-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But you do it so much bettterer than what I can . . .

[Willow904]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... toms-union" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour should back the single market. Barry Gardiner is wrong
Heidi Alexander

Alexander makes a point here that I have previously made about how an economy the size of the UK in the single market but outside the EU would most likely alter the status quo somewhat:

Countries in the European Economic Area already participate in the preparation of EU legislation relevant to them. They have a hold-out power, ultimately underpinned by the ability of their sovereign parliaments to reject any proposed EEA legislation. Yes, those EEA countries are comparatively small compared to the EU member states. But were the UK to become a non-EU member of the EEA, the current imbalance in administrative resources that exists between the EU and EEA states would be markedly less acute – in all likelihood, strengthening the hand of the EEA members. I know it’s not perfect, but it’s better than the economic alternative.

It may prove a reason why the EU may not wish to grant the UK a Norway type deal. However, it would be nice to see the UK at least try this route.