FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Johnson defies PM’s Brexit strategy with call for short transition period

The Labour MP Pat McFadden, speaking for the Open Britain group which wants to maintain the closest possible links to the EU, accused May of being weak: “Any prime minister with an ounce of strength would not permit her cabinet colleagues to launch thinktanks undermining the government’s policy, let alone in a government building. (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ion-period

Morning


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 70701.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Disabled people have to apply for 60% more jobs than non-disabled people before finding one

Good-morning, everyone

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


Open consultation
Trade Union Act 2016: consultation on the Certification Officer’s levy


The Certification Officer is responsible for statutory functions relating to trade unions and employers’ associations.

This consultation seeks your views on the government’s proposed implementation of section 20 of the Trade Union Act 2016. This gives the Certification Officer the power to impose a levy on trade unions and employers’ associations to recover the cost of oversight and regulation.

HindleA wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... icers-levy

Open consultation
Trade Union Act 2016: consultation on the Certification Officer’s levy

The Certification Officer is responsible for statutory functions relating to trade unions and employers’ associations.

This consultation seeks your views on the government’s proposed implementation of section 20 of the Trade Union Act 2016. This gives the Certification Officer the power to impose a levy on trade unions and employers’ associations to recover the cost of oversight and regulation.

(cJA emphasis)

Impose levies on cowboy capitalists taking wealth they didn't create, the Tory party and hydraulic fracturing companies to recover the cost of oversight and regulation

https://beisgovuk.citizenspace.com/lm/c ... icer-levy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People working for a living are currently footing the tab for services benefiting fat a***d free marketers marrying money

HindleA wrote:https://beisgovuk.citizenspace.com/lm/c ... icer-levy/

Have I made an error? Misunderstanding the nature of this levy? I'll read from the link you've posted but welcome any quick helpful hints.

Frances Ryan:

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

For Julia every month is a desperate fight to pay the bills. She’s a teacher

Ties into the stories recently about how people are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing costs. The UK's wealth is locked away in property assets, extremely difficult to access for those born to the wrong parents, but not even necessarily accessible to those born to the right parents if the Tories attempt to nab it for social care is any indication of where this is all heading. A house price crash can, in a strange way, reset this inequality. When prices crash earned income suddenly buys more, inherited wealth from property less. A tiny adjustment, but one that has happened from time to time and kept the whole skewed system going. What happens if that adjustment doesn't come, what if house prices continue to outpace earnings?

We are looking more and more like a rentier society. And I still feel SH is wrong about deregulation and freeing up the greenbelt, despite the apparent logic. Landowners understand that to hang on to their inbuilt advantage they need to hang on to their land. They won't free up land for houses at a pace that will reduce prices unless forced to IMO. We need planned development like garden cities and LVT. We need a small inheritance tax on most people instead of 100% inheritance tax on just those who need residential care. We need better protections for private renters so landlords can't unfairly raise rents year after year for sitting tenants or unfairly evict them. Basically we need a lot of the things Ed Miliband was proposing in 2015. And instead we got Brexit

https://www.ft.com/content/1642f23a-ee0 ... 144feabdc0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@cja


https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... icer/about" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA wrote:@cja
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... icer/about" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Many thanks

Willow904 wrote:Frances Ryan:

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

For Julia every month is a desperate fight to pay the bills. She’s a teacher

Ties into the stories recently about how people are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing costs. The UK's wealth is locked away in property assets, extremely difficult to access for those born to the wrong parents, but not even necessarily accessible to those born to the right parents if the Tories attempt to nab it for social care is any indication of where this is all heading. A house price crash can, in a strange way, reset this inequality. When prices crash earned income suddenly buys more, inherited wealth from property less. A tiny adjustment, but one that has happened from time to time and kept the whole skewed system going. What happens if that adjustment doesn't come, what if house prices continue to outpace earnings?

We are looking more and more like a rentier society. And I still feel SH is wrong about deregulation and freeing up the greenbelt, despite the apparent logic. Landowners understand that to hang on to their inbuilt advantage they need to hang on to their land. They won't free up land for houses at a pace that will reduce prices unless forced to IMO. We need planned development like garden cities and LVT. We need a small inheritance tax on most people instead of 100% inheritance tax on just those who need residential care. We need better protections for private renters so landlords can't unfairly raise rents year after year for sitting tenants or unfairly evict them. Basically we need a lot of the things Ed Miliband was proposing in 2015. And instead we got Brexit

https://www.ft.com/content/1642f23a-ee0 ... 144feabdc0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1. Rent controls are almost the worst possible measure. Price fixing creates a shortage. True of all things. The best defence I have seen is this

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... ntrol.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but even Chris's argument is that it might not be as terrible as economists think, not a positive case.


You can't, consistently, argue for more supply and for rent controls. They push in the opposite directions.

2. Garden cities would be great. They'll have to go on greenbelt.

3. You can do some things with tax. Replace stamp duty (which discourages downsizing) with an LVT would help a bit.

4. Labour's claim that was also made under Miliband that there are evil Capitalists just sitting on undeveloped land is evidence free claptrap. Developers need a land bank: they can't just buy land as one job ends. The incentives to develop where there is demand are already huge and cannot be met. That is why small garages in Balham now sell for £1.5m.

5. The Tories are killing themselves by their reluctance to invest i infrastructure and deregulate to get rid of some of the poorly used ugly greenbelt. Labour, sadly, isn't offering any solution either, with counterproductive rent controls and fantasies about hoarders (it is always the same when you get a shortage of anything, like food. Populists always blame mythical hoarders).

7. The tragedy is we know what to do. Infrastructure while interest rates are low. Deregulation. Changes to tax to encourage development, downsizing and to clawback capital gains from deregulation. Housing economists all pretty much agree, the debate is all at the margin. But the main parties, for differing reasons, don't want to offer. The Tories are stuck in the 80s, Labour in the 70s.

8. One of the dafter arguments is about how much more as a % we now spend on housing. Because food and goods have fallen in cost, land is going to go up. That is going to continue, all we can do is try to slow it.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... rling.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


A Labour run on Sterling?


Wren-Lewis

Willow904 wrote: Basically we need a lot of the things Ed Miliband was proposing in 2015. And instead we got Brexit

I was thinking the other day, after seeing another OMG Corbyn rant, stupid b****** should have voted for Miliband when you had the chance. It's heartbreaking. Have you seen The Miliverse on twitter?

For the avoidance of doubt, I think Corbyn could be a great success if/when he gets the chance.

@Willow904

I noticed that Ed Miliband got a mention in Jeremy Corbyn's speech yesterday ("Use it - or lose it").

gilsey wrote:

Willow904 wrote: Basically we need a lot of the things Ed Miliband was proposing in 2015. And instead we got Brexit

I was thinking the other day, after seeing another OMG Corbyn rant, stupid b****** should have voted for Miliband when you had the chance. It's heartbreaking. Have you seen The Miliverse on twitter?

For the avoidance of doubt, I think Corbyn could be a great success if/when he gets the chance.

I hadn't seen The Miliverse before. Kind of like the sound of boring!

PorFavor wrote:@Willow904

I noticed that Ed Miliband got a mention in Jeremy Corbyn's speech yesterday ("Use it - or lose it").

This relates to land with planning permission I believe? SH keeps saying how developers need a certain amount of banked land and keeps ignoring all the land with planning permission being held by investment vehicles etc who don't build houses. Developers can't build on land they don't own! We had an old builders yard in the middle of our village owned by just such an investment vehicle. The site was a mess, a real hazard. Fortunately because there were some derelict buildings on the site the council had powers to do exactly what Ed - and presumably now Corbyn - was proposing. "Use it or lose it" (well sell it, in reality, in that particular case, but the outcome is the same, houses not a derelict site). It's just a piece of the puzzle, but would be a useful power for councils have in certain cases, I have no doubt of that.

EM got a warm reception whenever he appeared at conference this week. Quite right too.

Willow904 wrote:

PorFavor wrote:@Willow904

I noticed that Ed Miliband got a mention in Jeremy Corbyn's speech yesterday ("Use it - or lose it").

This relates to land with planning permission I believe? SH keeps saying how developers need a certain amount of banked land and keeps ignoring all the land with planning permission being held by investment vehicles etc who don't build houses. Developers can't build on land they don't own! We had an old builders yard in the middle of our village owned by just such an investment vehicle. The site was a mess, a real hazard. Fortunately because there were some derelict buildings on the site the council had powers to do exactly what Ed - and presumably now Corbyn - was proposing. "Use it or lose it" (well sell it, in reality, in that particular case, but the outcome is the same, houses not a derelict site). It's just a piece of the puzzle, but would be a useful power for councils have in certain cases, I have no doubt of that.

I don't think I did ignore this last time we discussed. Completely unsurprising and nothing that requires remedying in my view. Lots of applications are speculative or in case needed. I'm surprised t any higher

AnatolyKasparov wrote:EM got a warm reception whenever he appeared at conference this week. Quite right too.

A mystery to me. He lost an election that should have been win, leading to Brexit.

I suppose he also led to Corbyn, and many worship him.

Willow904 wrote:

gilsey wrote:

Willow904 wrote: Basically we need a lot of the things Ed Miliband was proposing in 2015. And instead we got Brexit

I was thinking the other day, after seeing another OMG Corbyn rant, stupid b****** should have voted for Miliband when you had the chance. It's heartbreaking. Have you seen The Miliverse on twitter?

For the avoidance of doubt, I think Corbyn could be a great success if/when he gets the chance.

I hadn't seen The Miliverse before. Kind of like the sound of boring!

Capture8.PNG

If he had won, we'd all be moaning like hell about him and have no idea about the bullet we'd dodged.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... s-backlash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Bradford school's ban on sausage rolls and pork pies sparks backlash
Parents complain as staff at Shirley Manor primary check lunchboxes for unhealthy snacks and drinks

I blame Eve for the fact I am less than average height.

[youtube]8bfyS-S-IJs[/youtube]Sigh

If mainstream news wants to win back trust, it cannot silence dissident voices
- Nick Robinson

A kook propped up and interviewed like they're an expert on climate change when it's only Nigel Lawson, for example, isn't allowing a dissident voice freedom of speech, Nick Robinson, it's bad journalism and compromises the integrity of the public service you're working for. You've said it yourself, all news isn't credible.

Of course its a mystery to you SH. That's why you are now wailing in the wilderness.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

PorFavor wrote:@Willow904

I noticed that Ed Miliband got a mention in Jeremy Corbyn's speech yesterday ("Use it - or lose it").

This relates to land with planning permission I believe? SH keeps saying how developers need a certain amount of banked land and keeps ignoring all the land with planning permission being held by investment vehicles etc who don't build houses. Developers can't build on land they don't own! We had an old builders yard in the middle of our village owned by just such an investment vehicle. The site was a mess, a real hazard. Fortunately because there were some derelict buildings on the site the council had powers to do exactly what Ed - and presumably now Corbyn - was proposing. "Use it or lose it" (well sell it, in reality, in that particular case, but the outcome is the same, houses not a derelict site). It's just a piece of the puzzle, but would be a useful power for councils have in certain cases, I have no doubt of that.

I don't think I did ignore this last time we discussed. Completely unsurprising and nothing that requires remedying in my view. Lots of applications are speculative or in case needed. I'm surprised t any higher

The derelict ex builders yard in my village should have remained derelict instead of having several houses on it because in your opinion speculative investments for paper gains shouldn't be discouraged?

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

HindleA wrote:I blame Eve for the fact I am less than average height.

So yesterday's Six foot three declaration wasn't totally true then?
(unless you're a Universal Soldier)

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:@Willow904

I noticed that Ed Miliband got a mention in Jeremy Corbyn's speech yesterday ("Use it - or lose it").

This relates to land with planning permission I believe? SH keeps saying how developers need a certain amount of banked land and keeps ignoring all the land with planning permission being held by investment vehicles etc who don't build houses. Developers can't build on land they don't own! We had an old builders yard in the middle of our village owned by just such an investment vehicle. The site was a mess, a real hazard. Fortunately because there were some derelict buildings on the site the council had powers to do exactly what Ed - and presumably now Corbyn - was proposing. "Use it or lose it" (well sell it, in reality, in that particular case, but the outcome is the same, houses not a derelict site). It's just a piece of the puzzle, but would be a useful power for councils have in certain cases, I have no doubt of that.

Not at all. It should have been developed and the claim that People are deliberately leaving land undeveloped for paper gains is not implausible and evidence free.

The usual"hoarders" fallacy in times of shortage. Populists love it.


I don't think I did ignore this last time we discussed. Completely unsurprising and nothing that requires remedying in my view. Lots of applications are speculative or in case needed. I'm surprised t any higher

The derelict ex builders yard in my village should have remained derelict instead of having several houses on it because in your opinion speculative investments for paper gains shouldn't be discouraged?

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]

No.

It should have been built on, the incentives to do so were observably sufficient, and the claim that there are people deliberately leaving land undeveloped in order to make paper gains is without reason or evidence.

In times of shortage populists blame hoarders. Often they suggest seizing what they have. Unsurprisingly Corbyn engaged in this, lots of past precedents.

So, did Laura K actually need a bodyguard this week? The likes of DFH have never stopped mentioning it, so I assume there is some actual evidence.......

I don't think the latest round of "Brexit" talks went too swimmingly, reading between the lines. We seem still to be at the "Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect £200" stage.




Edited - typo

Hugo you are tying yourself in knots.

You said very clearly that lots of planning permission applications are purely speculative or left until "needed".

This is exactly what happened in the factual, actual, real case of the builders yard that I related. The land was bought as a speculative investment, planning permission was granted, the value of the land goes up, a paper profit is banked and then........nothing. Because the investment company didn't feel the "need" to do anything with it. No houses, just a derelict builders yard falling into disrepair in the heart of a community. Within easy commuting distance of a major city.

When the order to shore up the crumbling and dangerous derelict buildings was slapped on the investment company, when they were faced with having to spend money on it, they sold it. If you are right about the profit being in actually building rather than just getting planning permission, why didn't the investment company do the building? Why did it give that supposed big profit away to someone else? Out of the kindness of their hearts?

BTW I'm not suggesting seizing anything from anyone. I'm talking about using our tax system to encourage the kind of behaviour we want rather than the behaviour we don't.

As you seem to feel you can ignore real world examples as "fallacies", there seems little point debating anything with you, so I won't be bothering in future.

Morning all.

EXCL Tories were not prepared for snap election, says Theresa May

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/go ... ction-says

In a surprise admission, the Prime Minister said the Tories were were caught off-guard by the early vote which led to an overly-centralised campaign and a disconnect with local constituency campaigners.

@tinybgoat my height varies daily.

And in the least surprising appointment ever Lord Nash's replacement as minister in the Lords is Inspiration Trust founder and ex-DfE non-exec director Sir Theodore Agnew. Dame Rachel De Souza now has a direct line - if she didn't have one before - to the DfE...

All very cozy and cliquey.

Willow904 wrote:Hugo you are tying yourself in knots.

You said very clearly that lots of planning permission applications are purely speculative or left until "needed".

This is exactly what happened in the factual, actual, real case of the builders yard that I related. The land was bought as a speculative investment, planning permission was granted, the value of the land goes up, a paper profit is banked and then........nothing. Because the investment company didn't feel the "need" to do anything with it. No houses, just a derelict builders yard falling into disrepair in the heart of a community. Within easy commuting distance of a major city.

When the order to shore up the crumbling and dangerous derelict buildings was slapped on the investment company, when they were faced with having to spend money on it, they sold it. If you are right about the profit being in actually building rather than just getting planning permission, why didn't the investment company do the building? Why did it give that supposed big profit away to someone else? Out of the kindness of their hearts?

BTW I'm not suggesting seizing anything from anyone. I'm talking about using our tax system to encourage the kind of behaviour we want rather than the behaviour we don't.

As you seem to feel you can ignore real world examples as "fallacies", there seems little point debating anything with you, so I won't be bothering in future.

Speculators, hoarders. One of the things New Labour did was to free us from the standard left excuses for shortages/high prices. Back to the 80s indeed.

The market provides an adequate incentive to develop. There is no good reason why if land is worth X undeveloped and X+Y if developed not to do so assuming costs <Y.

Yes markets aren't perfect. Yes they have failed spectacularly on occasion in terms of land development (think of those empty Spanish flats). But central planning has a much worse record at resource allocation.

The state has several roles here

(i) infrastructure: build masses of it

(ii) de-regulation: we just need more land (and height) in places people want to live: look at the various studies I posted last week

(iii) Tax. An LVT is a useful, if minor, part of the mix. Couple with stamp duty reform. Tax capital gains from (ii)

It isn't hard. to do. There is a consensus amongst housing economists. But the parties don't want to do it. Both are afraid of Nimbys, and one thinks rent controls are a magical piece of price fixing free of the known reasons why price fixing is dumb in the extreme.

So much easier to blame speculators and hoarders, than to actually do anything useful. True of all governments in all times and places in cases of shortage.

In lieu of posting a picture of food,which seems to be the current habit.


Spaghetti Carbonara

Former BBC trust chair joins government with life peerage as international trade minister. More evidence of left wing bias.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

EXCL Tories were not prepared for snap election, says Theresa May

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/go ... ction-says

In a surprise admission, the Prime Minister said the Tories were were caught off-guard by the early vote which led to an overly-centralised campaign and a disconnect with local constituency campaigners.

They thought they would win a landslide *despite* not being fully ready. That's the truth, and yes its genuinely hilarious.

@hugo

The market provides an adequate incentive to develop. There is no good reason why if land is worth X undeveloped and X+Y if developed not to do so assuming costs <Y.

It also gives adequate incentive, not to develop yet
if Y increases with time.

Warning: This article contains content that some readers may find distressing


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt ... 21st_floor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The 21st floor

PF I thought you were limiting to two bottles a day,and stop taking the labels off and telling everybody they are water.

You can give me "that look",as much as you want.

tinybgoat wrote:@hugo

The market provides an adequate incentive to develop. There is no good reason why if land is worth X undeveloped and X+Y if developed not to do so assuming costs <Y.

It also gives adequate incentive, not to develop yet
if Y increases with time.

Yes. This.

There needs to be a balance between the rights and needs of landowners and developers and the rights and needs of communities and society. Giving local councils a few more powers to encourage the development of land that someone made an effort to get planning permission for is hardly some kind of raging socialism.
Neither is allowing councils to limit greenbelt building to planned developments with accompanying infrastructure, rather than an ad hoc free for all governed by developer's profit interests rather than the interests of the wider community.

In an unusual move the CBI and the TUC have issued a joint statement about Brexit. It is about the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. With speculation continuing that the UK could end up leaving the EU with no deal, they are both demanding an assurances that the EU nationals will be allowed to stay regardless of what else is agreed, or not agreed, in Brussels.

In the statement Carolyn Fairbairn, the CBI director general, and Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, say:

After 15 months of human poker, the uncertainty facing 4m European and UK citizens has become intolerable.

It is a blight on the values of our nations. Millions of workers and thousands of firms are today united in their call to leaders on both sides to find an urgent solution. A clear guarantee of the right to remain for citizens in both the UK and EU27 is needed within weeks.

EU citizens account for 10% of registered doctors and 4% of registered nurses across the UK. Millions more work in the public and private sectors delivering public services and making a vital contribution to our economy.

They need to hear that they will be allowed to remain in the UK, whatever the eventual outcome of negotiations. Not only is this important for our economy, it is the right thing to do.

Once agreed, this guarantee must be implemented independently of the rest of the negotiations to avoid the risk that ‘no deal’ in March 2019 leads to uncertainty and heartache for millions of people.

This is welcome.
Is there a secondary message about feminism here? Well done you two women.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... ess-17-19/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Brexit and the implications for UK business inquiry
Inquiry status: open - accepting written submissions
Accepting written submissions; the deadline for submissions are now:

Civil nuclear sector: Wednesday 4 October 2017 (unchanged)
Automotive: pushed back to Friday 20 October 2017
Aerospace: pushed back to Friday 27 October 2017
Processed food and drink: pushed back to Friday 3 November 2017. This does not include the agri-food or the farming sector, which is the subject of a separate inquiry by the EFRA Committee.
Pharmaceuticals: pushed back to Monday 13 November 2017

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... lications/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
Third Report


EU Withdrawal Bill.

It's before the watershed.

That mention of O'Grady reminds me of something else Hodges claimed this week - that there aren't any prominent woman trade unionists