Supply and demany is not the all and all that's why I described it as a catalyst. Say you but a small piece of land and build 10 houses on it. You then can only find 5 people with the means to buy a house, you are left with 5. You have a number of options, leave the houses empty and up for sale, reduce your price to bring more affordability into the market and bring in more potential buyers or rent the other five properties out for a year or two until more people can afford your asking price, (the rent should cover the cost of any borrowing). I would go for the latter and the rental market is what skews the supply and demand bit. If it was purely supply and demand the second option would prevail. An obvious bonus is that with house price inflation, one might actually gain from hanging on and renting for a bit. Supply and demand only really applies if one is producing the lower end housing, the first time buyer stuff, one bed flats etc., which sell quickly off-plan. We all know commuting is the pits of the world but living in London, no thank you. When I worked at Euston, I could get into work quicker from Ashford in Kent (35 mins High Speed 1) that my colleage who lived in Tottenham (40 mins). Living in London and living next door to work is a totally different thing. I understand the NIMBY thing, but laws are needed to nullify this, our planning system is a mess. All that is needed is a planner to determine whether there are enough schools, hospitals and an adequate transport system to determine whether a new development schould be built, not Public Enquires lasting years and years where some batty old spinster is concerned that an increase in traffic might scare her dogs. A typical example of a planning balls-up is the new runway at Heathrow, what a political hot potato-dick sucking-****-up that is. Does Heathrow need another runway, YES IT DOES. As someone who regularly flies in and out of Heathrow I have probably spent two days of my life (if added together) in the past few years circling London waiting for a landing spot. How much bloody polution does that cause? Just think, an aircraft takes about 2 minutes to land = 2 minutes polution. Yet circling for on average 30 minutes and then taking 2 minutes to land = 32 minutes polution, 16 times as much. **** me it's a no brainer. Not to mention the piss-taking German Lufthansa Pilots saying 'Zis vould not happen in Germany'. I now travel to Amsterdam the day before my African flight connection and stay overnight in the Hilton because I'm pissed off with either missing my connection or me making the flight but my bags not, just because the in-coming flight from Amsterdam gets delayed going round and round over London waiting to land. A total planning ****-up..
London needs another runway, Heathrow doesn't in my view, the plans for expansion there are needlessly disruptive. The smart place to expand is Stansted.
For people ending their journey in the UK perhaps, but most of the people flying into Heathrow fly out again, basically it is a hub like Frankfurt or Schipol. Not expanding Heathrow will limit it's usefulness and eventually kill it. A typical British attitude, just as we are on the verge of succeeding we shoot ourselves in the foot. The alternative is to build a brand new super hub close to London and close to good transport links and then downgrade Heathrow. However, it would cost an absolute fortune.
The Boris hub is not going to work, but I'm told the GLA are now preparing to come out strongly in favour of a Stansted hub - freeing up Heathrow for conversion into residential land. Interesting prospect.
Very interesting indeed. The one area of London with plenty of employment to lose all of it's jobs. Will everyone move to Stanstead? Personally I think it would be quicker and less disruptive to just build another runway at Heathrow.
Refreshing episode of Question Time on the Brexit tonight. I love referendum season when the BBC aren't able to tailor the audience to suit their political agenda. Those in favour of Brexit are often made to feel as outsiders, marginal, and a minority - but tonight's audience showed a clear majority in favour of Brexit, and made well reasoned, moral arguments backed up with facts. Diane Flabbott and Liz Truss, the career politicians towing the party line, were utterly flummoxed.
Where was it from WY? Surely not London. Having lived in Southern Hampshire I know the people in that part of the world are Neanderthals or Chav-like who favour a Britex!!
Poole used to be in Hampshire when I was young, before they ****ed with the county boundaries, if I recall correctly.
Poole was Dorset but it was its near neighbour, Bournemouth that was in Hampshire until they decided to put it in Dorset, a move which doubled Dorset's population besides increasing its revenues as the area is rather wealthy.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Crazy as he is, I actually think Trump would be the safest of the candidates (excluding Saunders, who is likely to drop out of the race pretty soon). For all his 'make America great again' rhetoric, he wants to do it at home, not by bombing the **** out of the rest of the world like the other candidates do. He also wants to **** Saudi up, which can only be a good thing.
Brits are by far the best front men when it comes to doing political satire pieces. Also : "Drumpf" ties in well with the fact that in UK regional parlance, "trump" means to fart. Whether you trump or drumpf, the effect is the same.
I could not disagree more strongly. I will grant you there is a possibility, even a probability, he could try to do reasonable things if elected. But the risk that he would not is far too great, IMO. He has portrayed himself as the man on the white horse, the big man who will fix things. We should not be surprised if he becomes the latest Putin or Mussolini. His strident anti-immigration rhetoric, designed to appeal to the Republicans’ true base, un- and under-employed poor whites in the south and southwest, hints at something even worse than that, as does his refusal to condemn Ku Klux Klan support. Given Sanders no longer appears to have a chance the thing to do is what my father-in-law, who has never before backed a Democrat, suggested, "Hold your nose and vote for Hillary." He certainly makes me very grateful that every member of the US armed forces swears an oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution. I also have to wonder about the economic prospects under a business genius whose panacea has been declaring bankruptcy, which he’s done four times.
Foreign affairs policies : Clinton : Invade Syria. Otherthrow the government. Rubio : invade Syria. Otherthrow the government. Cruz : Tear up the nuclear agreement with Iran. Invade Syria. Otherthrow the government. Trump : Let the Russians sort the mess out. Concentrate on our own problems. Trump's the only sensible one of the lot. And it looks like you've been swallowing plenty of propergander rhetoric if you're comparing Putin to Mussolini. I see no comparison whatsoever. Whilst the idea that Trump is some kind of closet KKK member is unpalatable, and concerning for Americans, I very much doubt that that perception has any substance, and I suspect that once he gets the nomination, he'll firmly put such concerns to bed.
I agree that all candidates are insane about foreign policy. But I believe Trump is at least as insane as any of them regarding the Middle East, if (arguably) more sensible about Russia. A question: is it right that you think my comparison of Putin to Mussolini is unfair? If so, who am I being unfair to?
