Loz

Katy Tonbridge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The landlord is testing the market to see if it > > will take the necessary rise to make BTL still > > work. If not, they will sell the property. > > ...they will sell the property...which means that > somebody down the chain who would otherwise rent > will now buy. So the rental population reduces. > So why should this force rents up?! There are a few factors, but the main one is that demand is greater than supply for both rental and sales. Another is that people often buy a spare room, but rarely rent a spare room. Basically, if there was enough housing to go around, then there would be little to no effect. But there is not.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jules-and-Boo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > prices will not come down > Supply is increasing just look at all the > development cranes and flats going up everywhere. Supply may be increasing a little (maybe), but it is nowhere near the level needed just to keep up with London population growth.

Yep - predicted almost exactly a year ago that this would happen... http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1605258,1605986#msg-1605986 The landlord is testing the market to see if it will take the necessary rise to make BTL still work. If not, they will sell the property. This is just the start - more of this will happen next year when both new policies kick in. This could potentially take up to 40% of properties off the rental market in London, which is already under a lot of strain. Expect house prices to maybe come down a little in the short term, but rents to go up and up for the long term.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Amazon don't like to promote it, but there is an > Amazon Video subscription without Prime for > ?5.99pm. Fine for temporary use, but if you keep it for a year the cost would be 12x5.99 = ?71.88. You get the full prime for ?79 a year.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without the war, IMO Blair would have been a > perfectly reasonable PM... who has been better in > the past 40 or so years? I agree. His first term was very effective, centre-ground politics. Considering the current highly unappealing - appalling, even - choices on offer (and I include the dreary Tim Farron in that), I'd consider voting for Blair.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wasn't actually, but you did write "knowingly offensive" jibe at a race group - which i guess > you don't support. Well, I think most people would consider was offensive (on varying scales, admittedly) and I doubt even Clarkson would deny he was trying to do that and so did it knowingly, so I consider "knowingly offensive" was a pretty objective - even factual - description. > But having seen what he said - "travelling the world like gypsies", I struggle to see how > you see this as offensive, or did he say something else? I had to google this to get the exact wording, but it was, "We're going to roam the world. We're gonna be like gypsies; only the cars we drive will be insured." ("Stop saying things that are going to get us fired!" Hammond hissed.)

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Knowingly offensive - I love that. Opens the mind > and educates. Pokes fun at the racists - that's > how the defence goes isn't it? Is that a pop at me?

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is one hell of a lot of money to be > made....in fact, it doesn't bear thinking about. I > bet they don't do anything charitable with it. Why on earth should they?

Watched the first episode last night. If Chris Evans' attempt was a pale shadow of the old Top Gear, then this is the old one on steroids... or a much bigger budget, anyway, from the Mad Max style opening to the pulling in Hollywood stars for 30 second jokes. The fantastic camerawork and production is even better. Even the scripted jokes had improved (OK, not hard). There was definitely an air of being let off the leash, from the 'Clarkson leaving the Beeb starter' to the knowingly-offensive gypsy joke slipped in early doors to the admission that, now they are on the internet, they could probably 'get away with pleasuring a horse'. Less good was the new driver, "The American". The joy of the Stig was he didn't speak, and they could do worse than to ask The American to do the same. Would have preferred a shorter programme, though - filling up well over an hour made a lot of the sections seem a bit padded out.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They will need some rabid people as well as > liberals, a few on this site come to mind! Oy. Liberals are people too.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lavender27 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sue Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > lavender27 Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Rational rage for certain "Tinnitus" > > > > > > > > > Eh?! > > > > look it up > > I know what tinnitus is. Well, it kind of rings a bell...

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @DaveR > > "mainstream economists have largely now accepted > that they were wrong about the immediate effects > of Brexit," > > Not so - acceptance that there are lagging factors, including some business decisions on the > part of suppliers not to pass on increasing costs for various reasons. Also, the bouyant spending > has been accompanied with a significant reduction in trading margins - traders sacrificing profit > for survival in the short term. Agreed. I work in retail now with an mostly imported set of products, some we source through importers/suppliers and some we source directly from overseas. We've managed to hold 99% of our prices to pre-Brexit levels, but we know that is going to change very soon - and big time. Our importers/suppliers have mostly held their prices through a combination of stock holdings, forward contracts and currency hedging, but all of that will be exhausted soon. We're expecting importers to raise prices in the region of 10% and perhaps more, as everyone is expecting the pound to continue to drop (especially if May stays on course to trigger A50) and they may price to take that potential further drop into account. For goods we import directly we still have some stock that could take us into the new year, but then those prices will then move sharply up as well. There is talk that VAT may drop in next week's statement by the Chancellor. Personally, I think he has to in order to try an mitigate the massive inflation blip we are facing over the coming months.

Nope. You need an internet connection and a Amazon Prime subscription. Or a friend with an internet connection and a Amazon Prime subscription and, given your brother's Ludditeness, a VCR.

As the world goes to hell in a handbasket, sometimes I can still find reasons to just love the human race. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37988508

http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/smilies/hug.png HHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGG!!!

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mainly because I do not see ameliorism as a credible strategy here. I can't be the only person that had to google this.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you are on the right of centre, claim your ground back. I'm not - I'm a centrist. If you want to push it further, economically centre-right and socially centre-left. > The only way we're going to get out of this is if we starting listening to each other. Yep. Exactly what I've been saying.

> No, Loz, what's really to hard to understand is that the left wing, for want of a better name, campaign > for one thing, then when people vote for another thing everyone says it's the left wing's fault. Well, that just means the left are failing to connect, doesn't it? And failing to connect with a bunch of people that were part of their core group not so long ago. > Who, precisely, is "trying to control what can and can't be debated"? The left wing agenda > is very much more ignored and/or ridiculed in most of the press than the right. Call them shy Tories, quiet Brexiters or timid Trumpers, we continually see people who don't feel they can stand up and declare their hand. Because they know they will get abused for it. As an example, I've heard many Labour people quite proudly say "I f***ing hate Tories". How is that helpful? People don't feel they can say what worries them. They have quietly simmered for years and now they are standing up and finding themselves in the majority. So, we can sit back and call them more names or stop and try to actually let them talk and maybe find a better compromise solution than the one they are wildly and desperately grabbing for. The guy in that video I posted absolutely nailed it. Either we - from the centre left to us centrists to the centre right - change our tactics and how we debate or we get used to some pretty terrifying election results.

Is it really too hard to understand? One of the things left-wing people often say is they have "empathy", yet this particular piece of empathy just seems to elude them. One of the other things left-wing people often say is they try and fight "hate". Yet, this name-calling is just based in hate. If you take a group of people and, instead of listening to their issues, tell them they a stupid and racist and sexist and gullible idiots every other name under the sun every time the dare mention what worries them (be that a valid fear or not), then they will turn away from you. They will stop talking to you. And also vote against what you tell them is a good thing. And, given our electoral systems, a mere few percentage of people turning away can cause massive effects. We saw it with Brexit. We saw it with Trump. And yet the lesson still doesn't seem to have been learned. And unless we stop trying to silence and shame people it will keep happening. Unless we stop trying to control what can and can't be debated, it will keep happening. I am still heartbroken we are leaving the EU and I am seriously worried about the next four years under Trump (although Pence worries me more). Yet if we don't come together and talk more and people not try and control what is 'acceptable' to debate then we're in for a lot more.

I'm rather surprised that the Mail (or the editor, at very least) was not charged with contempt of court.

This just popped up on my facebook feed. I'd say he's got the whole recent election debacles nailed. It's just over 6 minutes, but it is worth a listen - the first 30 seconds is a bit waffly, but he really gets to the point at about 1.10 in.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Labour party membership in the East Dulwich ward > alone has quadrupled since Corbyn stood as leader. That doesn't surprise me at all. Labour is an uneasy mix of the old-school working class and the urban left. Corbyn appeals to the urban left side, but it's the old-school that Labour is losing. But with Labour swinging further left and the Tories swinging further right, which way will the centre vote? I just can't see them going for either with any enthusiasm.

The new 'upgraded' Hotmail. So slow it gives me flashbacks to the old days of dial-up.

As someone said on a news discussion programme the other evening: Clinton is the second worst thing that could happen to the US on Tuesday. Pretty much sums up the whole grim episode.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ...So, her only choice then would be to call a > snap election. > > Not as easy as it once was due to the Fixed-Term > Parliaments > Act...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Par > liaments_Act_2011 > Two-thirds of the 650 MPs is needed to call a snap > election, which equates to 434. Tories currently > have 328, way short even when you add the DUP etc. > I can't see Labour in it's current state voting > for an election, the Tories would win hands down. > If the Supreme Court upholds this week's decision > I can see us being in one huge stalemate... A simple vote of no confidence in the Government by the HoC would do as well. Of course, that means the Tories have to vote to have no confidence in themselves and Labour may vote to have confidence in the Tories, which would cause much amusement all round.