DaveR

Mid market rates on xe.com: http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1000&From=EUR&To=GBP

"We need better wages for the 90% and we need way more people in work." What will Jeremy Corbyn do to assist with that?

My dad loved a curry. Can't remember how old I was the first time we kids went along - eight or nine? - but it was a fairly regular family treat. Lamb bhuna, tandoori chicken, naan, onion bhajis, bombay potato, pilao rice, probably other dishes that I've forgotten. After eights and hot towels at the end. You can get much better and more interesting Indian/South Asian food these days but I love a proper old school curry house feast.

"You also said you can't buy real honey (is there any other?) for ?2. Is that a fact?" "Alongside the Rowse honey (?2 a jar, if anyone's interested)" The facts appear to be clear. You can buy 'real honey' for ?2 a jar. You can't legally call something 'honey' unless that's what it is. But you can buy something that looks like honey, but isn't. And DF makes up any old shit he wants and posts it on here, like an incontinent poodle with an internet connection.

"No its not... As long as it does not say Raw, Natural Honey.. it can be labelled ay 'Honey' " Still talking out of the wrong hole, sadly. What the rules say is: "The purpose of this provision is to maintain the purity of honey, which is perceived by the consumer to be an entirely natural product with nothing added or taken away..... ...honey that contains added ingredients may not be described as ?honey? (or by any of the reserved descriptions)."

"It is 'Honey Flavoured' cheap high fructose corn syrup .. And that's basically it.. " I'm afraid, not for the first time, you're talking out of your a***

"You cannot buy Real Honey for ?2.00" So if you buy a ?2 jar of honey, what's inside? Something made by ants?

The proposed development clearly extends over the whole site ie including the vets and barbers ( and the estate agents). I have no idea whether their existing leases will enable them to stay. If the existing structure is demolished as appears to be planned, I doubt it.

It's the obvious use for the land, and an improvement on the current buildings. Five floors strikes me as one too many though, even with the surrounding tall period buildings. I hope the vets and the barbers stays, and I had heard that one of the big supermarkets had previously expressed an interest but then pulled out.

"I seem to be alone here, but I don't believe the change to the tax treatment for BTL investment is a good idea, as it sets a precedent for the disallowance of tax deductible expenses." I'm not sure about that - I don't think the tax position generally of BTL as an individual is comparable to other typical sole trader businesses. If you operate commercially through a ltd co you are subject to the normal business tax regime. However, there is little doubt that this is a political gesture rather than a considered policy, either from a tax or a housing perspective.

Just to be pedantic re Loz's example above, the measure introduced means that you can only deduct tax at the standard rate, not higher rate. So, using his figures, ?1000 rent and ?800 mortgage, in the future the tax due will be 40% on the ?200 'profit', and 20% on the other ?800 of 'income'. I've never understood the vitriol spouted at individual BTL landlords - they're just market players and if it wasn't them it would be commercial landlords - and I very strongly suspect that this is going to have essentially zero effect on London rents. There's been an announcement this morning about easing planning restrictions on industrial sites - I haven't read the detail, but that's much more likely to have an impact on the market as a whole.

Before about 1995, most Inner London pubs were rough, if by rough you mean that they were tatty and looked a bit shit and had a fair share of weirdos and potentially scary looking folk (if you're the nervous type) among the regular customers. Back then, a 'rough' pub was a place where you expected it to kick off with some regularity, rather than as a freak occurrence, or at least a place that was properly hostile to strangers.

As I understand it, 10-15% staff turnover annually is about average, although it will inevitably involve some years higher and some lower. Turnover rates are higher amongst younger teachers, and in London compared to the rest of the UK, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just based on the numbers.

Re BTL tax changes, is there anything to stop people transferring title to a ltd. co., or interposing a company as head lease holder, to retain the tax benefits?

I'm not that keen on kids in pubs. I have kids, and I like going to pubs, but I prefer not to mix the two. But that's just me - I have no inherent objection to other people taking their kids to pubs, provided the kids are well behaved, but I would expect parents to make sure their kids are well behaved anywhere where they will be mixing with adult strangers - shops, cafes, in the street etc. Most pubs can't afford to make themselves unattractive to families, but at the same time either ban or actively discourage kids after a certain time, and/or in certain parts of the premises, which seems like a reasonable balance. So WTF is everybody complaining about? You'll always get the odd idiot who brings a load of kids to the pub and lets them run riot, but in my experience it's fairly rare, and often the bar staff of someone else will have a word. If a particular pub has an ongoing problem, don't go there.

Jez, Miga, can I suggest (humbly) that you read my post again - the single point that I am making is that there is a type of Labour voter that is disproportionately to be found in London (which I understand to be fairly uncontroversial) and I am arguing that certain features of those voters make them more likely to engage in the kind of denial seen here. I'm not saying they're in the majority in London, or completely absent elsewhere, and, to be clear, I'm not saying either that they are some sort of Islington parody champagne socialists. And I'm not making this point solely because of this thread - in the aftermath of the election there was a massive outpouring of rage/grief from soi-disant liberal columnists wildly attributing Labour's electoral defeat to any reason other than the fact that the voters didn't want a Labour govt. It's just a more focussed manifestation of that wearyingly familiar cliche, the leftie who is constantly probing for the 'real' reason why someone else doesn't share their view - where do you stand to gain, what's your hidden prejudice, when did you first realise you were a fascist?

"DaveR, it's such a lazy response to label something you disagree with as Liberal denial." It would be, if that's what I did. However, it is a fact that the increase in the Labour vote in London was wholly unrepresentative of the trend in every other region. It is, IMHO, a reasonable observation that many Labour voters in London are unrepresentative of Labour voters in other regions - better educated, wealthier, more likely to be drawn to so-called 'liberal' issues (it's certainly something believed by the Labour party itself). I was suggesting that those voters are particularly susceptible to denial about the reasonable, sensible considered views of other people (in particular outside London) who have just voted in a Conservative government. (They're also particularly prone to stereotyping the working class, whose interests they purport to have at heart, as ignorant, selfish intolerant proles who can be 'taken in' by Tory false promises - see Neil Kinnock on election night - but that's for another thread. And I am suggesting that that is the root of the utterly pointless posts on here trying to question the legitimacy of that elected government with spurious statistics (or to be more accurate, data). Re Charlotte Church, I can't understand why anybody would take their political cues from her, but she's entitled to her opinions, regardless of how ill-informed, and we all know that there's a ready audience for celebrity stupidity.

"That's the precentage of those who voted Loz, not of the entire electorate." That's only a more valid comparison if you assume that of those who didn't vote, a disproportionate number would have opposed the present government. There's no evidence for that at all. What we're seeing is London liberal left-wing denial - AKA why the rest of the country got it wrong, or how it can be argued that a government whose politics I disagree with is somehow less legitimate than one that I voted for. It's like calling yourself 'progressive'. It's wank.

"It's that same old tired EDF stereotype. Why pay attention to common sense or reality when I can continue to spout the same old shit forever . Louisa."

I also think it is deceptive to use the phrase "Southwark Woods" in respect of land that is clearly a cemetery, and has a name. Plus, if you have a picnic while marching from one place to another you will probably make a terrible mess, and end up with indigestion. Down with this sort of thing!

I don't want to make this very tedious, but when you say this: "I strongly believe in the power of markets and incentives. However, I am not a market fundamentalist and neither is any serious economist. The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society" the strong suggestion is that you are talking about direct market intervention e.g. price/rent controls, measures to restrict buy to let, foreign buyers etc, which are nothing to do with the planning system. Also, the examples you give are classic planning functions, but not really to do with "regulating the market" at all. Providing for affordable homes affects the market, but does not regulate it. NB - the quote from you above "I am not a market fundamentalist......The housing market needs to be regulated....." is a trademark non sequitur. All you need to say is "I believe the housing market needs to be regulated" Then we can disagree unambiguously.

"Eh? Isnt' the planning system managing the process also known as 'regulation'.?" No, not in the sense being used in this thread, most obviously by you. In case you've forgotten, you said: "The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society." and "or you regulate the market to ensure that London remains a diverse, characterful and vibrant city" The function of the planning system is not to regulate the property market, although it can obviously have an impact.

"As soon as people start banding around insults such as 'smug lefties' I stop taking them seriously...." ....I settle into my easy chair, open the Guardian, and start deciding what's wrong with the world.

By world standards, London is not a huge city either in population or land area terms, and the trend is towards bigger and bigger 'metro areas'. It's been said loads of times (and is obviously true) that economic growth in other UK cities/regions should be one of the most effective brakes on runaway house prices in London and the SE, as well as being a good thing in itself, but don't hold your breath of that. It makes sense to plan for London getting bigger, and we are in danger of going the way of Paris - the city proper is full of expensive low rise period properties and the outer suburbs are full of tower blocks and modern developments of varying degrees of awfulness/dullness.

"With properties being bought and left empty and relatively low price elasticity due to latent demand from a huge overseas market, I would say it broadly is." The effect of overseas investors is massively overstated, largely because it makes for good headlines in the Daily Mail, and similarly the stats just don't bear out the suggestion that there are significantly more properties being bought and left vacant than in previous years. Both of these phenomena are concentrated in 'super prime' areas and very high end new build projects, and although there is bound to be some trickle down effect, the bigger issue is a straightforward lack of supply. Going back to the original subject of the thread, it seems to me that we are approaching a tipping point. Any rational analysis suggest that pop. density in Inner London has to increase fairly dramatically to bring some sanity back into the housing market and to enable London to carry on as a sustainable, growing city, but that means big changes to the look and feel of our period suburbs. Objectively there's nothing special architecturally about ED or any of the properties in it, but as a whole it is almost absurdly bucolic for an inner suburb of a huge city, with rows of terraces and green spaces, the butcher, the baker etc. I can understand perfectly well why people want to hold onto that, but I think change is inevitable, and the focus should be on trying to ensure that the planning system manages the process effectively i.e. development in the right place, good quality buildings, and minimising disruption for residents - all pretty basic things. Arguing about regulation of the property market is a red herring - it's a way for smug lefties to pretend that they're not equally responsible for rising prices, whilst luxuriating in their houses with gardens and opposing anything that might impact on their own suburban bliss.