QuantumCrayons posted:

As Vice-President of said society until September, you've heard a pretty accurate account of what goes on; it's all based off of original manuals, so it's as accurate as can be expected hundreds of years later. The Abertay society's free, sans a yearly membership and insurance, but there's a paid school up at Dudhope park called the IHA too, which is pretty good.

twoot posted:

The country's best example of "gently caress you muuuum!" in action; Dan Hodges, is even more amusing that I thought;

Dan Hodges gave Labour internal campaign thinking to Grant Shapps

Aliginge posted:

I actually sat in on an early-year session a friend of mine was attending so I saw everything right up to the Haka performance at the end I was injured at the time but still wanted to see how the sessions went down, sadly crunch time and life got in the way this year. Soon though, soon!

E: Remember Caitlin? She was an intern at our studio and she promoted your soc pretty hard at work!

CancerCakes posted:

A bubble is exactly the situation where competing capital causes increased returns. Rents absolutely can keep pace with purchase prices, especially if landlords subdivide dwellings.

Returns on BTL aren't massive, but they are attractive compared to normal savings, which is why most BTL are small time landlords without a pension pot (commonly previously self employed).

Large investors and individuals invest in different things, lumping them together as "capital" doesn't work. Banks are not competing to buy these properties - they don't have to, if the bubble bursts they own them outright, as most BTL are mortgaged to the hilt. They get their cut what ever happens, they don't get as much money, but they have some one to manage and maintain the properties that the investor *thinks* he owns.

BTL is a symptom of the problem, which is a lack of housing. More housing, be it BTL or rent controlled or state owned will relieve the pressure on the market, and reduce rents and prices. But whether the bubble will pop or be stabilised (by carney playing with interest rates) before supply is fixed remains to be seen.

TLDR - Supply is lacking, but bubbles cause capitalism to do really wacky poo poo

baka kaba posted:

But it's not as simple as 'too little BTL', because an increase in BTL actually increases the demand for BTL, since it makes the resource (housing available to buy, specifically) more scarce. So in the buying market, there's more demand (would-be owner/occupiers + BTL investors) and less supply (BTL accounts for a growing proportion of the UK housing market, 18% now apparently). So rising prices, and more potential owner-occupiers outright excluded financially, pushed back into the rental market.

And in the rental market, you have growing demand (higher population, and rising prices forcing more people to rent). You have growing supply too, since more housing is being turned into rental, but - like you say - the lack of new housing puts pressure in the other direction. Rents are rising, this isn't theoretical. Maybe at some point an equilibrium will be found, and additional BTL would start to depress prices, but right now it's a landlord's market. Like I said, eliminating private rental wouldn't solve the entire issue - there needs to be more housing. But it would cut out profiteering middlemen and release a captured resource (and access to housing is a human right) back into the supply.

Aliginge posted:

Also Abertay Uni around here have a Rennaissance Martial Arts soc which seems to be about getting fit and learning to hit dudes with all kinds of medieval weapons, I'm so gonna join up next year.

ronya posted:

The extent to which BTL increases the price of housing available to buy (by removing these units from that market) should be exactly the extent to which BTL decreases the price of housing available to rent (by adding those units to this market), which is nada.

Venomous posted:

Stirling has the Medieval society, which is also based around learning to use medieval weapons, and I'm probably going to join that next year as well.

In similarly niche hobbies, we also have the Assassin's Guild where you're split into teams, you go around for a week with a NERF gun concealed in your pocket and you have to shoot as many people in the opposing teams as possible until you're shot yourself. It's basically the best thing ever.

ronya posted:

baka kaba posted:

So yeah, BTL adds supply to the rental market... and it adds demand too, because if a house was snapped up by a landlord rather than someone who wants to live in it, that's +1 to houses for rent and +1 to the households who need to rent. If a million people are ready to buy a millions houses, and then landlords appear and buy up 500,000 of them, that's 500,000 extra rental properties available, and 500,000 more people on the demand side for rental. Meanwhile house prices are still raised, because demand hasn't decreased, so rents are also raised because they're naturally linked to house prices.

baka kaba posted:

How do you work this out? An influx of additional buyers means an increase in demand, without a corresponding increase in supply. That puts an upward pressure on prices, and forces a lot of potential buyers to turn to the rental market instead. They're not removed from the buying market, they'd still buy a house if prices weren't so high. So being forced to rent doesn't remove their influence on the demand side of property purchase.

So yeah, BTL adds supply to the rental market... and it adds demand too, because if a house was snapped up by a landlord rather than someone who wants to live in it, that's +1 to houses for rent and +1 to the households who need to rent. If a million people are ready to buy a millions houses, and then landlords appear and buy up 500,000 of them, that's 500,000 extra rental properties available, and 500,000 more people on the demand side for rental. Meanwhile house prices are still raised, because demand hasn't decreased, so rents are also raised because they're naturally linked to house prices.

Landlords literally are middlemen. They profit by owning scarce resources that other people need, that those other people would have if they didn't exist, and more landlords chasing the country's limited housing supply puts upward pressure on prices.

I don't know why you're claiming that if BTL landlords didn't exist they'd all be magically replaced one for one by letting agents, who apparently aren't participating in the market right now, for some reason? Because if they are, then that's in addition to all these individual landlords, which again means more demand forcing prices up, and any decrease in that activity would be beneficial. It's not that BTL is uniquely bad in the private rental market, just that it's increasing and it's being actively encouraged by the government.

ronya posted:

the undisputed observation that BTL appears to be a remunerative exercise enjoying increasing rents, at least at the present.

LemonDrizzle posted:

For what it's worth, rents have barely been keeping pace with inflation nationally: based on the ONS indices, rents in England only rose by 4% between January 2011 and March 2014 whereas house prices rose by 11%. Even in London, rents only rose by 6.4% between Jan '11 and March '14. Inflation over the same period was just over 10%...

Camrath posted:

Yes, I know it's nerdy as gently caress. No, I don't care.

ronya posted:

I am not sure how subdivision is supposed to allow rents to keep pace, outside of an increased demand for rental housing to begin with, but taking it as given, then it isn't a bubble!

The Register posted:

Although GCHQ interception of overseas communications can be authorised by a general “external” tapping warrant, the wording of the law does not permit storage of every communication for examination, as GCHQ wished to do. In 2009, the spooks persuaded then Foreign Secretary David Miliband to sign a new warrant legalising what they wished to do. The terms of such warrants have never been published.

Stelas posted:

Hopefully not too late to toss in for the sweepstake, only just spotted it.


If you're not using it as an excuse to get blisteringly drunk in a muddy rainlogged field for a weekend, I don't know what to tell you.

Jippa posted:

What is the thread title referencing? Is it some obvious expression I'm missing. I know it's late but I was thinking "night of the long nige's".

LemonDrizzle posted:

For what it's worth, rents have barely been keeping pace with inflation nationally: based on the ONS indices, rents in England only rose by 4% between January 2011 and March 2014 whereas house prices rose by 11%. Even in London, rents only rose by 6.4% between Jan '11 and March '14. Inflation over the same period was just over 10%...

Betjeman posted:

Does this take into account the increasing amount of multiple occupancies? Or is this calculated only on the entire property?

sharktamer posted:

So I'm in a bit of a funny situation at work, pay-wise. I applied for an internal position at the beginning of the year and was offered the role in March. The pay is actually 4k lower than what I'm on in my current role, but they've kept me on my current pay rather than lowering it (I don't think they're allowed to lower it). I applied for the new role since it seems to have much better prospects, a more obvious career path and potential for higher pay in the future.

3 months on and I still haven't moved into the new role. They've gotten as far as posting the new position on job sites and this is why I'm wondering about asking for a raise. The job advertised is obviously a carbon copy of my current position, I have all the essential skills, even all the non-essential skills and the same experience. The only difference is the salary is about 12k higher.

So I'm kinda confused to what I'd be entitled to in this situation. While I am expected to move into a new role that actually has a lower salary on paper, the fact is that I am still in my current role and expect to be for quite some time considering how far along the hiring process they are. I've been told exactly how much a person with my skillset and experience should be earning and it seems that I should have already been earning this much. So should I ask for a bump up to this level of pay? I am moving into a new role, but as it stands, I'm still in the current position, underpaid.

In case it matters, I'm in the UK.

Stelas posted:

If you're not using it as an excuse to get blisteringly drunk in a muddy rainlogged field for a weekend, I don't know what to tell you.

LemonDrizzle posted:

AFAICT, it's entire properties. The ONS' method for computing the rental index is described here, while that for the house price index is here

Gonzo McFee posted:

Came to this thread to see what people were saying about Edwina Currie trying to defend appointing Jimmy Savile to run Broadmoor because he helped break unions and you're all talking about what sport is the best sport.

Gonzo McFee posted:

It's obviously Pro Wrestling because Pro Wrestling is at least honest about being entirely fixed and corrupt and has fun with it.

sharktamer posted:

WTF

Camrath posted:

Oh, very much that too.

It's an excuse to wear silly clothes, drink huge amounts of mead and real-ale, smoke massive loving spliffs in a canvas bell tent (best hotbox evah) and beat the crap out of people with rubber weapons.

Really, when put in those terms how could it not be great?

LordVorbis posted:

So they are advertising your OLD position (that you're currently still doing) for 12k more then you were on when you were doing it. (When being now still.) I think this is where you find your boss/bosses and sit them down and ask WTF. Point to the job ad if you have to. Either you've signed a contract for a new position and responsibilities in which case what they do with your old role is irrelevant, or they are advertising your current job for a lot more money.

sharktamer posted:

I've accepted the offer for the new job, but yeah, I'm still doing the new one for less pay than is being advertised. I guess I'll speak with HR about this. Is there any other ammo I should bring with me?

Doctor_Fruitbat posted:

There's a LARP thread over here, although there isn't very much going on in it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3557368

Still, I'm off to CP on the weekend to run around in way too much fur and speak in some terrible accent (and also drink incredible amounts of mead), so yay me.

quote:

For years Britain has blackmailed and made a fool out of the EU. The United Kingdom must finally make a choice: It can play by the rules or it can leave the European Union.

Following last week's elections for the European Parliament, Europe finds itself at a historical turning point. It faces two questions. The first is that of how seriously the European Union is about its promise to become more democratic. The second is whether Britain can remain a member of the EU.

The extent to which those two questions are inextricably linked became clear last week when Prime Minister David Cameron refused to recognize the results of the European election and nominate winner Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Commission, the EU's executive. Most countries and leaders in the European Council, the powerful body representing EU leaders, had previously agreed to this procedure. It was a significant promise to the people of Europe -- they were to be provided with a greater say and they were supposed to be given a sign that their vote counts, that it has concrete effects. But Cameron threw a spanner in the works.
The crisis in European democracy is also the consequence of an unsettled relationship. Both the EU and Britain have perceived their relations as a burden in recent years. People in Brussels suffer under a London that is constantly thwarting European unity, that has slammed the brakes on progress and has doggedly prevented a deepening of relations.

In Britain, people suffer under the EU itself. It is a chronic suffering, one without any prospects of relief. During the May 25 European election, the anti-EU UKIP party garnered 27.5 percent of the vote, making it the strongest British party in the new European Parliament. And this, despite the fact that Britain's other political parties -- with the exception of the Liberal Democrats -- are about as EU-friendly as Germany's euroskeptic AFD.

...

Regardless, Europe has taken British sensitivities and particularities into account for long enough. The EU has allowed itself to be blackmailed and made to look like a fool time and again. It was patient to the point of self-denial. For decades England was forgiven for every veto it cast; every special wish was granted. When Margaret Thatcher shouted in 1984, "I want my money back," the EU granted her the "British rebate," which the country still profits from today. None of this did anything to change the Brits' view of things, and the country is more distant from the EU today than it has ever been.

...

The EU cannot allow itself to be blackmailed by the British for another three years and refuse to give the people of Europe what was assured to them before the election -- that they could use their vote to determine the next president of the European Commission. If the EU doesn't fulfill that promise, it will lose all credibility and acceptance.

Autonomous Monster posted:

Why exactly is Cameron trying to interfere in the appointment?

e: He wants a euroskeptic in, should have guessed.

Lord Twisted posted:

They've got a bloody point though. Whatever your thoughts are in the EU the UK has done a stellar job of bring the special loving snowflake in every negotiation with our red lines and British rebate.