DaveR

"I really dont get the idea that he wont win an election, he represents the majority.......those living on ?25,000 a year or less which is the majority I believe. Those trying to get him out realise that, they just don't want politics to change in the way it would if he gets in." I'm genuinely interested in why it is people believe that Corbyn can win, or that 'he represents the majority'. I don't believe it, not because I personally disagree with his views (I do), or because I claim to have any kind of deep/unique insight into the beliefs of the wider UK electorate, (I don't), but just because the evidence suggests that UK voters don't buy the ideological left position that he unashamedly represents. If they did, surely Ed Milliband would now be PM and the EU referendum would just be a bad dream? Ah, people say, Ed lost because he wasn't left wing enough. But how does that square with the fact that people evidently chose to vote Tory instead? Labour failed to win target seats from the Tories, and that's why they lost the election. Are Labour more likely to win those seats under Corbyn? When, amongst his followers, 'Tory-lite' is an insult, and 'Tory' is a swear word? Ah, people say, JC will galvanise people who previously didn't vote. As if nobody has ever tried that before, as if it was easy. 200,000 extra Labour members sounds a lot, but 30 million people voted at the last election. As I said, I'm genuinely interested. Persuade me.

Saying 'I know a lot of people who will vote for J Corbyn' is not a very persuasive argument for his ability to win a general election. That involves winning seats from the Tories, in places that tbh you probably never visit and would be hard pushed to point to on a map. Plus, if you think Thatcher was evil, Dave is an oily creep and T Blair is the devil incarnate you're already way out of the political mainstream - you just don't know it.

The dismal scientist returns

The World Cup in '66 was won after Ipswich Town bequeathed their manager to the nation. Also when England got to the semis in Italia '90. Mick McCarthy anyone?

It pains me to say it, but BFS is probably about right for the England team right now. Puncture the delusions of grandeur, get the team playing to a system. Then we can work out whether we're actually good enough to play to a more ambitious system.

"Actions speak louder than words...here's a look at what Theresa May says and what she actually does.." All that article does is show that, as a cabinet minister, she voted with the government. She would have had to resign if she hadn't. Even as a backbench MP the expectation is that you will, unless you're a 'rebel'. So all that really demonstrates is that T May is not J Corbyn - and I think we all knew that already.

Botany Bay, between Margate and Broadstairs. Park at the top of the cliff and walk down the steps. It never gets too busy because it's not in either town.

The things you are talking about are unrelated to the fact of a sale of a property. Of course demand goes up with population increase. Supply is affected by whether house are offered for rent as HMOs or occupied by one family, or indeed one individual. But there is no reason why the change in the tax regime, even if it leads BTL landlords to sell up and get out of the sector, will change the underlying market situation, and hence the price of property (to buy or rent). Obviously, if loads of people sell up at the same time you might get a dip in sale prices in a soft market, but if the underlying demand remains that will correct itself pretty quickly. TBH at the moment the factors most likely to impact on London property prices are US bankers f*cking off to Frankfurt and overseas investors piling in on the back of a cheap ?.

It's obviously a simplification, but the basic point remains - there's no reason why a BTL landlord selling up will lead to increased rents, because it doesn't affect the supply or demand for property.

"Then surely less supply = higher rent, so tenants will also lose out here. No?" When a BTL landlord sells, the property doesn't disappear, unless it's left vacant, which seems unlikely. It's either bought by someone else and rented out, or owner-occupied (taking one more potential renter out of the rental market, directly or indirectly). At the risk of descending to a bit of Economics 101, prices of houses to buy or to rent are largely market determined. The fundamental reason why prices are so high in London and around are pretty straightforward, and are largely demand driven - there is very limited supply, and 'substitutability' does not operate in a way that an economist would consider rational (the 'price' for living in ED over say Croydon is massive, and largely driven by intangible stuff of no obvious economic value). Even cheap finance is ultimately the result of high demand - that's what supports the value of the underlying security for lenders. The point of that is that no landlord can just put up the rent to whatever they want - someone has to be willing to pay it. I've seen arguments that BTL landlords are more likely than corporates to push rents up because their margins are tighter, but I'm not aware of any evidence on that.

"The basic point is that property businesses have an advantage over the individual house buyer, who gets no income-tax relief for their mortgage-interest payments, and this is obviously unfair." Except property businesses will continue to benefit from tax relief on borrowing, just like every other business. The only exception will be property businesses operating under the personal income tax regime rather than any other regime. "Moreover, a lot of the problems in BTL came from people who had little money of their own, but used collateral from other homes to borrow other people's money to develop a business owing other people's homes. That's fine (perhaps) for the Captains of Industry that run outfits like BHS or Woolworths, who were merely competing with other businesses to stiff their suppliers." I don't get this - if someone borrows against their personal assets to start a business that's usually seen as a bold, ballsy risky thing to do - entrepreneurial spirit and all that. But if they do it to start a property business, it's wrong? And if it's done by big business it's OK? "Landlordism is, however, subtly different. There, the competition is between landlords, with tax relief and spiralling equity and the hard-working individuals with no tax relief whatever who might have saved their own money for a deposit if it wasn't for a rentier continually waving the threat of two months' notice over their families, and perennially ratcheting the rent by a fraction less than the cost of moving house." Calling something 'landlordism' doesn't change the essential nature of the situation - it just reveals your bias. "Effectively, the market was so rigged..." Ironically, the exact opposite is true. The market for residential property was becoming more and more efficient, in classical economic terms i.e. the true value of the underlying asset is exposed through a freely determined market price. But it is correct to say that the market was distorted by tax reliefs available to one class of buyer. That distortion will continue, because tax relief will continue to be available to corporate (in the tax sense) landlords. There would be no problem with BTL if there wasn't an underlying problem with the housing market - most obviously under-supply in regions of high demand - and a pre-existing culture favouring home ownership as an inherently desirable thing, that makes us view buying and owning a home in quasi-spiritual terms. There are also linked problems around security of tenure, in particular, that support a more rational preference for buying vs renting. There are lots of things that govt could and should be doing to address real problems with the UK housing market, but these tax changes are not going to help anyone. All that having been said, this is still a ridiculous campaign/appeal.

The think I like about T May is that the cops hate her, and she doesn't care. It shows that she's had a proper look and noticed that (although still very good in many ways, and genuinely full of decent individuals) the Old Bill still have serious problems re routine bad practices and abuse of power, petty and not so petty. That's good in itself, but even more significantly it shows that she is not a prisoner of her background, which is very old school shires Tory.

It might be worth spending ?9.99 on this ebook: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/downloads/eu-free-movement-guide-to-making-an-application-in-the-uk/#comments It's produced by Garden Court, pretty much the leading set of barristers chambers for immigration law

Legally it sounds like a very weak case - normally you would share advice on prospects of success with people you're asking for funding. Plus there's massive backlogs in the Admin Ct at the moment - don't bank on getting a decision on permission any time soon, and if by some quirk you get permission, expect to wait a year or more for a hearing. I think the legislation is pretty poor, and is not going to benefit anyone very much, and I don't buy into the demonisation of BTL landlords, but this is a ridiculous campaign, and as already observed, to characterise it as a tenant tax is both stupid and deceptive.

It's worth looking back at what Theresa May actually said - she said that guaranteeing PR for any EU national who was in the UK at the point of formal exit risked creating a perverse incentive for large numbers to come now, which in the heated situation post Brexit vote might make things worse. It was a classic Hoe Office response from the minister who has been repeatedly burned over immigration issues. She has subsequently said that reciprocal residency rights for UK and EU nationals respectively is an obvious issue to be resolved in exit negotiations, but I'm not aware of anything that has been said to suggest the UK stance is likely to be anything other than favourable to EU nationals resident here. I understand the psychological shock, but the likelihood of deportations, families being split up etc. is vanishingly small. It may be worth adding that my wife is a national of a non EU country where neither I nor the kids have any residency rights, and which doesn't permit its citizens to have dual nationality. She has family there and we have quite strong ties. It's a pain, but it's really a practical issue that requires a bit of thought and planning. For EU nationals in the UK or with UK ties it's not going to be worse than that, and likely to be much easier.

"As for his status here, eu and efta citizens are not permitted to apply for residence - they have it. Citizenship is a possibility but it is 1) expensive and 2) not guaranteed. My ex has had periods back in his country within the last 5 years which - although punctuated with lots of visits to us - may disqualify him." I don't think this is accurate. The normal rules of 5 year residency apply to EU/EEA nationals provided they have been exercising free movement rights i.e. working or studying. The UK govt was and still is prohibited from requiring those nationals to obtain evidence of entitlement, but it can be obtained and cannot be refused if the criteria are met. Periods outside the UK will not necessarily preclude the right having been obtained. Citizenship is not guaranteed but there is a strong presumption in favour where there is already a right of permanent residence. https://www.freemovement.org.uk/how-to-make-a-permanent-residence-application/ "an EEA national from outside the UK will automatically qualify for permanent residence after five years of living in the UK while exercising their Treaty rights and qualifying under the Citizens? Directive. If the EEA national choses to do so, he or she can apply for a permanent residence card as evidence of possession of this right."

I would echo the other recommendations for Fernando - he works really hard, great attention to detail, great value for money. He is unsurprisingly very busy, but don't let that put you off.

I have no love of T Blair - never voted for him, never trusted him, never really rated him other than as a pure politician, and that's not a quality I admire, to say the least. But almost everything that has been said about him since the Iraq war is complete nonsense. Everybody will take exactly what they want from this report and ignore/dismiss the rest. what a waste of time and money.

It amazes me that you evidently choose to believe that standards have inexplicably plummeted in a single year rather than take account of the introduction of an entirely new set of tests. It amazes me even more that you can, without any apparent irony, refer to vested interests when describing the ONS and advise me to talk to a teacher instead. Why don't you read the post by SLad above. This strike is absolutely about pay and conditions, specifically this: "Currently all local authority employed teachers in England are paid according to the same contract. Like nurses and doctors, we have automatic pay progression (so the longer you serve the more you get - an incentive to stay in the profession), pay portability (if we move schools we get the same basic pay - they can't pay us less - this stops a competition between schools for teachers based on money" You either think this is a good idea or not. I don't. But it's very much to do with teachers' interests, not childrens. More fundamentally though the dispute is about accountability. The NUT doesn't want it's members to be accountable to central govt (whether via Ofsted or more generally). It doesn't want its members to be accountable to school heads and governors - that's why it opposes academies. It wants to to go back to the days of LEAs i.e. no accountability at all. No thanks.

No, I don't. I look at data - you might want to do the same. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483897/SFR47_2015_text.pdf

"the current government's decimation of education and children's futures" The NUT has said this about every government for the last 30+ years - and yet schools and children continue to thrive. The strike is about pay and conditions - no different from any other industrial dispute. But just like the RMT and the FBU always cry 'public safety', teachers always cry 'we're protecting your childrens' futures'. It's disingenuous and wrong.

I don't think we disagree about definitions, but I think you have missed my point. You make a comparison with tsunamis, but modelling tsunamis is ultimately about the application of the laws of physics to inanimate materials. Economics, however, as you observe "is a social science and subject to all the vagaries of human nature..". It's just not the same, which is why when seismologists press the red button we all head for the high ground, but when economists do the same we are entitled to be sceptical. FWIW, my own view is that the medium - long term economic impact of Brexit is very likely to be negative but unlikely to be catastrophic - in particular, I am dubious about the stagflation predictions. Apart from anything else there appears to be a key assumption that 'the EU' is an institution whose behaviour is likely to be consistent and predictable over time - a very weak assumption when, just as a single example, there is a French presidential election less than a year from now.

I don't think that's the question. I think the question is whether you have anything helpful to say on this topic, and I think you've just answered it.

The definition of a model that I'm familiar with is: "A representation of some aspect of the world which is based on simplifying assumptions. A model is defined by a specification that describes the matters that should be represented and the inputs and the relationships between them, implemented through a set of mathematical formulae and algorithms, and realised by using an implementation to produce a set of outputs from inputs in the form of data and parameters" with the added caution that models are: "inevitably simplifications of reality, and whose specifications, implementations and realisations must be fit for purpose for the information to be relied on" So it's a fair question to ask what your data is and more pertinently what your assumptions are when you are confidently predicting doom and gloom and smugly patronising everyone else. After all, it was f*cking quants and their models that got us into this mess in the first place. Edited to add - I note on another thread you've said "Oh but our models are much better now". Well, maybe.

I know why teachers are striking. I also know how much they get paid, their pension terms, turnover rates, and sick days (sick days = greater than the public sector average and more than double private sector average). And how many working days (for children, learning days) were lost to strikes in recent years. All of this information is in the public domain. Teaching, if done properly, is a tough job. So are many other jobs. What do you think parents do while their children are at school - go to the park? The NUT is second only to the RMT as the UK's most militant trade union. The links between its national leadership and the hard left are well-documented. Needless to say, Furiousteacher, you do not have my support. NB, on strike day I will not be going to the beach - I will be going to work.