We're all in this together

How do we predict when the next crash is going to come? The Grauniad seems to think Q1/Q2 2017, so should I try to sell the house Q4 2016?

Reckon a bit later than that, looking at the graph on this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/28/2008-crash-government-economic-growth-budgetary-surplus
Maybe peaking in 2018, crashing shortly after?

corbyn pulling a paxman on pieface at PMQs today. sweaty lipped fucker was bricking it. loathsome shit of a man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcparliament

@bashthebox

Also

Bungled regime change in Libya leaving it in flames to become a conveyor belt for terry's into the Syrian death machine.

Pumped money and guns into said Syrian death machine.

Tory front bench all looking like they would rather be anywhere else than feigning support for CallmeDave's prevarications.

:(

1 Attachment

Too much or too little?

More to add to the huge mountain of evidence that social deprivation reduces health and life expectancy:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/02/death-rate-middle-aged-white-americans-aids

Old news but reading Boris' statement against tax credit cuts this morning highlighted the absurdity of the Tories' suggestions that they want to make anyone better off but their rich mates.

Surely to admit that that the "hardest working families" are also the worst paid automatically negates any suggestion that capitalism (at least as we know it) can be meritocratic. Unless, of course, they don't actually think that poor people work hard...

All those Eleanor Rigbys ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/more-people-dying-penniless-and-alone-in-london-official-figures-show-a3125956.html

I'll be working for Crisis again this Christmas, and we'll be seeing more and more guests who aren't homeless, but are elderly, vulnerable, penniless and lonely, and see a homeless shelter as their least-worst option. This country...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/17/osborne-hands-advisers-big-pay-rises-while-freezing-public-sector-wages

Wealth statistics time again--no surprises:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/dec/18/britain-private-wealth-owned-by-top-10-of-households

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35166460

Five of the largest banks in the UK paid no corporation tax in 2014.

Presumably, they offset their fines for rigging rates, etc. as losses against their profits? Ah, gotta love a toothless regulator!

I'm no tax lawyer, but I think generally you can't include criminal misconduct fines in your calculation of any losses for corporation tax purposes. Amounts have to be "wholly laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade or profession" or "connected with or arising out of the trade or profession" to constitute losses. Fines for regulatory breaches are generally not considered to fall within these parameters and would be considered contrary to public policy. That said I have seen a few civil tribunal decisions that seem to have muddied the water (I think McClaren F1 got away with offsetting nearly £32mil resulting from fines). Even if you can't include fines as losses, I've no idea if you can include compensation you are ordered to pay out to individuals as a result of your misconduct. Regardless this is a practice that has been enshrined in law since before 1960, so carrying forward losses is nothing new or surprising despite the headlines. The bit that grates is where (like DB) the bank reports losses in the UK but huge profits in Lux.

Fair enough!

Govt sticking an 8% surcharge on banking profits from 1/1/16.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/squeeze-protest-david-cameron-live-bbc-andrew-marr-show-welfare-state

So ... the old dream of building 'good' or 'better' housing projects comes alive again. Never mind that the top-down approach to 'engineering out' social problems has almost always failed, no matter how good the design; the construction companies need work and while one is giving it to them one might as well tear apart established communities as they've had the temerity of being troublesome. Two boxes with one tick.

Needless to say, a lot of old estate infrastructure is very poor, as a result of the same top-down approach now being attempted again. Just as the preoccupations of the day resulted in poor housing then, so they will again ensure that a different kind of undue emphasis is given to new build. Judging by recent examples near where I live, not much has changed in fifty years, and there are still too few entrances, long internal corridors, social vacuums, non-mixed use, etc. Also, with eyes mostly on computers these days, 'eyes on the street' or social surveillance is potentially even worse than back then.

Never mind the architectural quality. The key (no pun intended) will of course be the contracts; the financing, the modalities of buying or renting, the form of governance and the setup of the organisations managing the housing. That's probably where most of the skulduggery will come in.

Good post.

Personally I have always thought the whole "sink estate" thing was a bit of a red hearing. How come the Barbican, built on similar architectural lines as other estates, never became a sink estate?

Obviously, I do think that bad architecture can exacerbate existing problems, but I can't believe that it's not a variety of social and economic issues that's the real cause.

Why do I get the feeling that the contracts for the new housing will go to companies with very close ties to the MP's that matter and will be allowed to shirk any form of affordability either to individuals or to the govt.

I can't answer your question but I was surprised to find out that the Barbican has never had any social housing. Turns out it was expensive private property all along.

too right oliver, ship those jolly crims and benefit cheats, and jonny foreigner (one and the same aren't they?) out to erith and other sub-capital malaria spots, so that me and my bully-club chums can get a decent return on investment

Sorry, it retorical. I'm by no means an expert but I'd hasard a guess that it's because it's in a prime location, has always had middling to affluent residents which reduces the likelihood of social issues. It also has a relatively high police presence due to the historic (and current) terrorist threat. Point being, buildings don't in themselves cause crime and social disfunction.

erith

very easy to start a framebuilding business