Support NeoGAF

[QuicheFontaine]

Works/ed just fine in NYC before they started dismantling it.

It would slow the massively harmful practice of buy to let and hopefully cool off the insane housing market in the capital.

I'm open to the idea, but if I was thinking of renting a room out in my house and was told I can only do that for, I dunno, say £500pcm, I just...wouldn't do it. Extrapolating that up to the general population makes me think that rooms would be taken off the market at a time when we really want more going on the market. Of course, this is just my own only house I'm talking about here, not part of a buy-to-let empire.

 

[Theonik]

Rent caps sound appealing, but do they really work? Wouldn't it just result in fewer rooms available for rent?

Not really, that's largely because no-one wants to buy a house to hold on to that they aren't using. Think of it this way. If I buy a house, and costs me £3000 in tax every year, plus any maintenance, I need to be able to make that money out of it or it's just costing me money. Of course if the value of the property increases faster than that I could keep it vacant all the same but then I wouldn't have much incentive to rent it out to begin with. (i.e. the reason to hoard properties IS rising rent costs so if you freeze those people have to rent their properties to make money)

Edit:

Yeah, the veto over local redevelopments is a bad idea and bad policy. It assumes gentrification is always negative, and always puts the power in the hands of nimbys.

There is nothing inherently good about somewhere being a dump. Gentrification is only an issue because there is no where live able on low wages in London anymore. Any policy that would prevent somewhere like Brixton or Clapham gentrifying like they have done in the last few years is a bad policy through and through.

You are touching two points here which I'm not sure you are reconciling. The rights of people 'Not wanting Clapham to be a shithole' do not necessarily overpower the rights of people who live there not to be forced to relocate somewhere else. The issue with gentrification isn't that areas become nicer, it's that the process includes evicting existing tenants because it the worlds of a friend of mine living in Holborn 'Why should these people get to live here for cheap when I have to work my arse off to make rent' (he's on a paid internship and his father is paying half his rent)

This is why involving the local communities is important as is providing assurances that they can stay. This isn't an opposition to making improvements. It's common sense protections for the locals. The issue with housing associations in the US and Nimbyism is they function much like councils while being basically private enterprises.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Not really, that's largely because no-one wants to buy a house to hold on to that they aren't using. Think of it this way. If I buy a house, and costs me £3000 in tax every year, plus any maintenance, I need to be able to make that money out of it or it's just costing me money. Of course if the value of the property increases faster than that I could keep it vacant all the same but then I wouldn't have much incentive to rent it out to begin with. (i.e. the reason to hoard properties IS rising rent costs so if you freeze those people have to rent their properties to make money)

But I'm talking about people with houses that they are using, i.e. people who rent out rooms in the house they live in. Not all landlords are renting out a second home. Maybe you posted before my last post:

I'm open to the idea, but if I was thinking of renting a room out in my house and was told I can only do that for, I dunno, say £500pcm, I just...wouldn't do it. Extrapolating that up to the general population makes me think that rooms would be taken off the market at a time when we really want more going on the market. Of course, this is just my own only house I'm talking about here, not part of a buy-to-let empire.

I'm fine with slapping anything you fancy on second home owners. I think I've posted this before (maybe not in this thread), but in my opinion there's such a massive, massive difference between owning one home and owning two.

 

[CyclopsRock]

This is why involving the local communities is important as is providing assurances that they can stay. This isn't an opposition to making improvements. It's common sense protections for the locals. The issue with housing associations in the US and Nimbyism is they function much like councils while being basically private enterprises.

It's hard to see how that wouldn't be de facto what it becomes, though. Anything that "improves" the place is going to put rent up. Anything that means more people can live there - ie housing developments - is going to "change the character" of an area.

 

[Theonik]

But I'm talking about people with houses that they are using, i.e. people who rent out rooms in the house they live in. Not all landlords are renting out a second home. Maybe you posted before my last post:

I'm fine with slapping anything you fancy on second home owners. I think I've posted this before (maybe not in this thread), but in my opinion there's such a massive, massive difference between owning one home and owning two.

I didn't see that post no. I'm not sure how big of an actual problem that is though. If anything, you'd prefer to incentivise people to move to smaller properties as their children move than letting out spare rooms. Though I don't even think live-in landlords are that common overall or even desirable. I don't think the market value for that room currently hits £500 even, so obviously rent controls wouldn't hit these groups.

It's hard to see how that wouldn't be de facto what it becomes, though. Anything that "improves" the place is going to put rent up. Anything that means more people can live there - ie housing developments - is going to "change the character" of an area.

Arguably yes, which is why part of the proposed policy is that developers would at a minimum have to pay to relocate the current residents in an equivalent dwelling in the same area under the same terms so you can imagine people in this kind of situation would be keen to accept a move that didn't hurt them but improved their lives but of course one also needs to consider that people can be quite irrational. (another potential positive of such a requirement is that developers basically have to a. ensure there is a diverse build-up of a community which is better for the social cohesion of an area than moving these people into ghettos and b. to make developments cost-effective they would have to move to more dense development so c. combined with potential build code improvements means a pretty fast expansion of building stock in those areas)

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I didn't see that post no. I'm not sure how big of an actual problem that is though. If anything, you'd prefer to incentivise people to move to smaller properties as their children move than letting out spare rooms. Though I don't even think live-in landlords are that common overall or even desirable. I don't think the market value for that room currently hits £500 even, so obviously rent controls wouldn't hit these groups.

Hmm, some sort of "bedroom tax" then?

And screw you it's a lovely room, definitely worth £500pcm easy. I'm only not renting it out because I like to wander about the house in a loosely fastened dressing gown with no pants on.

 

[Theonik]

Hmm, some sort of "bedroom tax" then?

And screw you it's a lovely room, definitely worth £500pcm easy. I'm only not renting it out because I like to wander about the house in a loosely fastened dressing gown with no pants on.

That's the underlying goal yes. Though the thing I dislike about the bedroom tax is it's built around the assumption that you are in fact renting that room which you might not be doing. I can see the value of doing this, it doesn't meant I necessarily agree with it! It does make some economic sense!

And I mean, if people aren't renting rooms out because they want privacy in their own homes doesn't that mean, it's not in fact a factor of rent value but of convenience. Also, idk even in London you would typically top out between 800-900 for a room but that's in pretty ideal circumstances. Live in landlords are less appealing for tenants so fetch closer to 500-600 in pretty ideal circumstances!

 

[Beefy]

Government have given police another 150k to carry on their search for Madeleine Mccann. Why?

 

[anonymous_abc]

Government have given police another 150k to carry on their search for Madeleine Mccann. Why?

Daily Mail?

 

[Beefy]

Daily Mail?

?

------------------
11m spent on trying to find her. Doesn't matter about the others missing though.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

That's the underlying goal yes. Though the thing I dislike about the bedroom tax is it's built around the assumption that you are in fact renting that room which you might not be doing. I can see the value of doing this, it doesn't meant I necessarily agree with it! It does make some economic sense!

And I mean, if people aren't renting rooms out because they want privacy in their own homes doesn't that mean, it's not in fact a factor of rent value but of convenience. Also, idk even in London you would typically top out between 800-900 for a room but that's in pretty ideal circumstances. Live in landlords are less appealing for tenants so fetch closer to 500-600 in pretty ideal circumstances!

You're talking bobbins mate. I know a guy in London who rents out the other bedroom in his two bed flat for £900pcm, and I wouldn't say it's in "ideal circumstances". What's the difference between having a live in landlord and a flatmate? It just means that any problems are more likely to get sorted immediately than with a remote landlord that's hard to contact. I don't know why you think it's less desirable than, say, a houseshare.

And google spare rooms to rent in Bristol, £500pcm is very much the going rate. Bobbins!

 

[TimmmV]

You're talking bobbins mate. I know a guy in London who rents out the other bedroom in his two bed flat for £900pcm, and I wouldn't say it's in "ideal circumstances". What's the difference between having a live in landlord and a flatmate? It just means that any problems are more likely to get sorted immediately than with a remote landlord that's hard to contact. I don't know why you think it's less desirable than, say, a houseshare.

And google spare rooms to rent in Bristol, £500pcm is very much the going rate. Bobbins!

Mental, that's more than my mortgage on a 2 bedroom flat in the centre of Manchester!

Going back to the topic - I thought that rent controls in Berlin had actually not been that good in the end for tenants? (this might not be true, and I'm too lazy to actually look up the stuff I read about it again) I certainly know that friends of mine had a ridiculously hard time finding a place to live there, but cant remember if it was just down to a shortage of flats as opposed to a shortage of flats on the market

 

[anonymous_abc]

?

------------------
11m spent on trying to find her. Doesn't matter about the others missing though.

I just assumed it was part of their headline rotation next to Diana, Brexit and Aliens.

 

[Beefy]

I just assumed it was part of their headline rotation next to Diana, Brexit and Aliens.

Nope, it's the headline of most papers.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Nope, it's the headline of most papers.

No, I was blaming the DM for keeping the subject alive and kicking.

 

[Uzzy]

Tories weren't ready for snap general election, Theresa May says

Theresa May has conceded her party was not ready when she called a snap general election in which the Conservatives lost their majority despite a hefty lead in opinion polls.

The prime minister said she had failed to communicate the message she gave on the steps of Downing Street after winning the Tory leadership last year, and that her words about making the country work for everyone “didn’t come through in the election”.

She was speaking before the Conservative party conference in Manchester this week, in an interview with the House magazine conducted by the former Conservative leader Michael Howard.

The prime minister hinted that she believed there had been too much top-down control in the campaign, which delivered the Tories a net loss of 13 seats and forced May to strike a pact with the DUP in order to remain in power.

“There weren’t the links with the centre [of the party] that there should have been. That’s one of the issues we need to look at,” she said.

“With a snap election, of course you have to do a little more from the centre, in relation to the selection of candidates. But I think it’s in relation to ensuring that the campaign at the centre is reflecting what’s happening at the grassroots.”

Muffled Curb Your Enthusiasm theme in the distance.

 

[Beefy]

No, I was blaming the DM for keeping the subject alive and kicking.

Oh! Misread your post.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Arguably yes, which is why part of the proposed policy is that developers would at a minimum have to pay to relocate the current residents in an equivalent dwelling in the same area under the same terms so you can imagine people in this kind of situation would be keen to accept a move that didn't hurt them but improved their lives but of course one also needs to consider that people can be quite irrational. (another potential positive of such a requirement is that developers basically have to a. ensure there is a diverse build-up of a community which is better for the social cohesion of an area than moving these people into ghettos and b. to make developments cost-effective they would have to move to more dense development so c. combined with potential build code improvements means a pretty fast expansion of building stock in those areas)

Ah, but that's a fairly limited example, no? That - rehoming people - must only be relevant for when a development forces the relocation of some people (like in Stratford during the construction of the Olympic Village, like in Elephant and Castle when that massive shit hole got torn down etc) but where as most "displacement" from gentrification comes from rents going up to a sufficiently high level that anyone renting there suddenly finds that they can't afford to carry on living there. It's hard to see how developers can be made to pay for this. And of course, this scenario is good for those who own their home if they see its value go from £150k to £400k in a decade or so as the area becomes significantly more desirable.

 

[Theonik]

Ah, but that's a fairly limited example, no? That - rehoming people - must only be relevant for when a development forces the relocation of some people (like in Stratford during the construction of the Olympic Village, like in Elephant and Castle when that massive shit hole got torn down etc) but where as most "displacement" from gentrification comes from rents going up to a sufficiently high level that anyone renting there suddenly finds that they can't afford to carry on living there. It's hard to see how developers can be made to pay for this. And of course, this scenario is good for those who own their home if they see its value go from £150k to £400k in a decade or so as the area becomes significantly more desirable.

This is where rent caps come in.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

UKIP surprise: they elected someone who apparently is moderately sane as leader.

Granted he's still a Brexiteer so there's a limit. But this guy was a Lib Dem for a long time - one of the old Liberal eurosceptic ones that stock the meagre membership of the continuing Liberal Party these days.

Very odd choice - maybe they got burned so hard with Nuttall that they fished around for someone who could be described as the opposite?

 

[Uzzy]

Seems like they decided to go for a slow, boring death, rather than flaming out with Waters and going to a far right place. Which is probably a good thing, though I'm not sure how relevant UKIP will be in the future. Depends on how Brexit goes, I suppose. Should we start going towards the EEA. then I imagine we'll see Farage and Banks back on our screens, regardless of what UKIP do.

Tory party conference soon, and there's a couple of pieces I found interesting. David Willetts, a former cabinet minister, talked to the Guardian about how the Tories risk a 'permanent loss of the youth vote'. They're in desperate need of policies that would appeal and need to try to solve the fundamental problem, which is simply that it's hard to have a property owning democracy if people can't own property. Seems to have been a fair bit of talk around that from Conservative leaning media, I recall a few articles from the Spectator, but will we see something announced at the party conference? I'd be surprised if there was anything major.

Then there's two related pieces about the Tory Party membership. John Stafford, a prominent Tory campaigner, has been talking about the dire state of the membership for what looks to be a while now, saying that the numbers have dropped down to 100,000, which is similar to the Lib Dems numbers, and that they simply don't have enough activists to fight and campaign in another election. But it's hard to see the appeal in being a party member right now. The two big things you get a voice in is deciding the leader and deciding the local candidate for parliament, but party members didn't get a voice in either of those decisions last time. Robert Halfon, a rather interesting Tory MP (he's pro trade-unions!), has some ideas on democratising the Tory Party, which would probably help. Corbyn bringing some 600,000 members to the Labour Party is clearly a game changer.

 

[tuxfool]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-on-camera-reciting-kipling-in-myanmar-temple

The foreign secretary has been accused of ”incredible insensitivity" after it emerged he recited part of a colonial-era Rudyard Kipling poem in front of local dignitaries while on an official visit to Myanmar in January.

Boris Johnson was inside the Shwedagon Pagoda, the most sacred Buddhist site in the capital Yangon, when he started uttering the opening verse to The Road to Mandalay, including the line: ”The temple bells they say/ Come you back you English soldier."

Kipling's poem captures the nostalgia of a retired serviceman looking back on his colonial service and a Burmese girl he kissed. Britain colonised Myanmar from 1824 to 1948 and fought three wars in the 19th century, suppressing widespread resistance.

Johnson's impromptu recital was so embarrassing that the UK ambassador to Myanmar, Andrew Patrick, was forced to stop him. The incident was captured by a film crew for Channel 4 and will form part of a documentary to be broadcast on Sunday about the fitness of the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip to become prime minister.

another one for the pile.

 

[sammex]

.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Meanwhile, in Scotland:
Ruth Davidson warns of Brexit 'over-optimism'

Ruth Davidson has called for "serious people" to carry out the legwork of Brexit negotiations as the Conservative Party gears up for its conference.

The Scottish Tory leader told The Times newspaper she believes "over-optimism" about the the future of Britain outside the EU "sells people short".

She said: "I think optimism, positivity is good. I think over-optimism and not recognising that there are practical realities that have to be faced, that have to be worked through and that complexity is not something you just skip over, that you actually have to work through, I think sells people short."

 

[jimbobsmells]

Wow Andrew Marr is wrecking May. She sounds so flaky.

 

[Uzzy]

'The Labour Party would cause a run on the pound!'
'What's happened to the pound on your watch?'

May's awful, truly awful.

It genuinely beggars belief that she thinks an extra £360 a year in the hands of graduates will somehow bring masses of the youth (by youth read everyone under 45) vote back to the Tories, while she's seemingly unconcerned about people being unable to eat with the universal benefit changes. It's not an economic problem this woman has, it's a moral problem.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

'The Labour Party would cause a run on the pound!'
'What's happened to the pound on your watch?'

May's awful, truly awful.

It genuinely beggars belief that she thinks an extra £360 a year in the hands of graduates will somehow bring masses of the youth (by youth read everyone under 45) vote back to the Tories, while she's seemingly unconcerned about people being unable to eat with the universal benefit changes. It's not an economic problem this woman has, it's a moral problem.

Seeing that headline in a room full of students yesterday and we were all like "Fucking really?" It's so transparent, and considering they implemented this system in the first place they're barely offering an olive branch. Can't imagine it convincing anyone with half a brain that the conservatives suddenly care about young people.

 

[Maledict]

'The Labour Party would cause a run on the pound!'
'What's happened to the pound on your watch?'

May's awful, truly awful.

It genuinely beggars belief that she thinks an extra £360 a year in the hands of graduates will somehow bring masses of the youth (by youth read everyone under 45) vote back to the Tories, while she's seemingly unconcerned about people being unable to eat with the universal benefit changes. It's not an economic problem this woman has, it's a moral problem.

It’s so stupid. Young people typically want systemic change, not minor adjustments. It’s why they don’t support conservatives generally. If the tories want to make a real play for the youth vote, they will have to fundamentally change their current approach to politics @which isn’t possible which such an incredibly weak prime minister,

 

[sammex]

Just seen that interview. I wonder why she persists with this robotic repetition of set phrases over and over when that was that a huge negative for her likeability in the election.

 

[tomtom94]

Speaking to my friends there are a number of young people and I suspect a lot of people "under 45" who actually believe that higher tuition fees are a good thing because they're a way of doing a graduate tax... or because young people are so ungrateful and just want free stuff. So what May has now managed to do, seemingly, is make nobody happy. Brilliant!

(Incidentally if you want a policy which will be popular with students, a good start would be a cap on university executive pay, which has risen drastically over the last five years)

 

[Mr. Sam]

(Incidentally if you want a policy which will be popular with students, a good start would be a cap on university executive pay, which has risen drastically over the last five years)

I doubt there are many students who are aware of this and even fewer who would care enough that they'd change their voting intention based on it.

 

[tomtom94]

I doubt there are many students who are aware of this and even fewer who would care enough that they'd change their voting intention based on it.

It seems to be coming up quite often at the moment. Maybe I'm biased because I had a personal interest in the Oxford story, of course.

 

[Beefy]

Anti-abortion MP Jacob Rees-Mogg admits making money from abortion pills

The devout catholic, tipped as a potential replacement for Theresa May as Tory leader, defended the company’s £5million stake in an Indonesian firm called Kalbe Farma.

Kalbe Farma produces termination drug misoprostol – sold under the brand name Invitec.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...aking-money-from-abortion-pills-a3647806.html

🤣

 

[Audioboxer]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...aking-money-from-abortion-pills-a3647806.html

🤣

Shocker. Massive hypocrisy from a cunt like him who wishes to control/restrict others lives whilst he makes money off them behind the scenes.

Is there anything hypocritical/shady well known Tories won't get caught doing?

 

[Mr. Sam]

As colossal a cock as he is, his investment firm - which he doesn't personally manage - investing in a company that makes a drug to treat stomach ulcers that woman in Indonesia use to abort fetuses is about as tangential a link as you can get.

Basically, I care that he's anti-abortion, because that's what makes him a monster. That he's personally made £16.53 from a stomach ulcer drug doesn't really change my opinion of the man.

 

[Jackpot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41490174

Boris Johnson has said Libyan city Sirte could be the new Dubai, adding, "all they have to do is clear the dead bodies away".

The foreign secretary's comments at a Conservative conference fringe meeting have sparked anger, with Labour calling them "crass, callous and cruel".

Conservative MP Heidi Allen said he should be sacked, as did the Lib Dems.

Mr Johnson was making a point about the need for optimism in Libya, after a recent visit to the country.

"They have got a brilliant vision to turn Sirte into the next Dubai.

"The only thing they have got to do is clear the dead bodies away," he said, before laughing.

The host of the conference fringe event, Legatum Institute chief executive Baroness Stroud, stepped in to say "next question", as the foreign secretary continued to speak.

I think those rumours of him wanting to be sacked might be true.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41490174







I think those rumours of him wanting to be sacked might be true.

If he isn't, then jesus fuck he has no idea how to do his job.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Not sure if trying to get fired or just comically inept.

Edit: I've just watched the clip and people in the room actually laugh.

Edit2:

 

[tuxfool]

Not sure if trying to get fired or just comically inept.

Edit: I've just watched the clip and people in the room actually laugh.

Edit2:

lol.

How can anybody take a headline like that seriously? Especially when considering the subject matter. Also the picture certainly contributes mightily to that immense mental picture.

 

[CCS]

Not sure if trying to get fired or just comically inept.

Edit: I've just watched the clip and people in the room actually laugh.

Edit2:

Oh hey, the Telegraph continues to be a joke.

I think it is correct to call him a lion though, because he reminds me of the Three Lions: he's a constant national embarrassment, whenever you think he's reached his worst he manages to go lower, and only morons think he's any good.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

It is kinda bizarre in a way. A few months ago we all thought it was over for the Labour party. Hell even I will admit I expected by this time for there to have been a total collapse of the labour party and for it to disappear into nothingness.

Now it is looking more and more like the Tory party are well and truly fucked and they brought it on themselves. The Financial Times posted an interesting story today that says boffins have calculated the average age of a Conservative member. Now do you think it is :-

a) 32
b) 42
c) 52
d) 62
e) 72

The Answer :-

Spoiler

Yup the AVERAGE age of a member of the conservative party is SEVENTY FUCKING TWO. The Tory party is so fucked it is incredibly funny. For comparison purposes the average age of labour members is 51

 

[Camp Freddie]

I'm surprised Labour is so high, especially after Corbynmania and £5 members meant a lot of new young members.

Still, that Tory figure. They have more to fear from the grim reaper than from Corbyn. Makes you realise why the triple lock was so important to them.

And Boris... Sleeps around, lasy as fuck... Yep, that's a lion.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Why is having a high average age a bad thing though? If old people are reliable voters, surely those are the people you want as members?

 

[Wrestlemania]

Why is having a high average age a bad thing though? If old people are reliable voters, surely those are the people you want as members?

Because they’re going to be dead relatively soon? And because they may be reliable voters (irrelevant since they’re already members), but probably not very capable campaigners.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Because they’re going to be dead relatively soon?

They'll be replaced by more old people though. I'm pretty sure there'll be even more old people in the coming decades than there are now.

 

[tomtom94]

I'm surprised Labour is so high, especially after Corbynmania and £5 members meant a lot of new young members.

I think Labour is probably propped up by a lot of septagenarian and octogenarian old-school fuck-Thatcher-bring-back-the-mines socialists.

 

[Pixieking]

They'll be replaced by more old people though. I'm pretty sure there'll be even more old people in the coming decades than there are now.

Without ideologically aligned younger voters, the Conservative party will atrophy, as the older right-wing voters die, leaving left/centre voters in the hands of Labour and LibDems. It's fine saying there'll be more older voters in the future, but a Labour voter isn't suddenly going to move into being a Conservative voter when they hit 65. Or at least, not a Corbyn Labour voter - it would be a major shift in political/moral alignment that can't just be waved-away by saying "Oh, they'll be more protective of their pension when they retire". A Blair-ite Labour voter may shift right, but not a Corbyn-ite.

Add that to the fact that the youth vote is - for the most part - Left wing socially and economically, and you have a voter base that can only shrink. The more right-wing the Conservatives go to play to their older base, the more they shorten the party's life-span.

 

[CCS]

Without ideologically aligned younger voters, the Conservative party will atrophy, as the older right-wing voters die, leaving left/centre voters in the hands of Labour and LibDems. It's fine saying there'll be more older voters in the future, but a Labour voter isn't suddenly going to move into being a Conservative voter when they hit 65. Or at least, not a Corbyn Labour voter - it would be a major shift in political/moral alignment that can't just be waved-away by saying "Oh, they'll be more protective of their pension when they retire". A Blair-ite Labour voter may shift right, but not a Corbyn-ite.

Add that to the fact that the youth vote is - for the most part - Left wing socially and economically, and you have a voter base that can only shrink. The more right-wing the Conservatives go to play to their older base, the more they shorten the party's life-span.

To follow this, in 1987 18-24s went to Labour by just 2% more than the Tories. This year, that gap was 35%. The younger generation coming through now is simply not going to be as Tory supporting when they get old.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The Tories really are massively lacking anything even remotely positive for young people. And I don't really even mean students but basically anyone under 40. My (general) support for them hinges on my (general) support for free market over government intervention, but honestly if Labour had a leader that didn't cum at the thought of the British Rail logo I'd be right on the edge and I'm *me*.

Bring back the coalition. All is forgiven.

Also y'all hear about that couple fucking in the toilet next to Nicky Morgan?

You know how people talk about how the Olympic village is just a giant fuck fest? Are the conferences a bit like that? I mean, lord knows no one can go for the speeches.

Asking for a friend.

You all doubted me.

 

[CCS]

The Tories really are massively lacking anything even remotely positive for young people. And I don't really even mean students but basically anyone under 40. My (general) support for them hinges on my (general) support for free market over government intervention, but honestly if Labour had a leader that didn't cum at the thought of the British Rail logo I'd be right on the edge and I'm *me*.

Bring back the coalition. All is forgiven.

Also y'all hear about that couple fucking in the toilet next to Nicky Morgan?



You all doubted me.

This is the thing, isn't it? 95% of people don't give a shit about ideology, they just want a government that works and helps them. That's why all this banging on about defending the concept of capitalism and free markets is so bloody stupid.