|
namesake posted:Is there some deeper points there then? It does say they make it unappealable for foreigners to buy them, presumably to live in or speculate on. As a side remark... the excerpt is a bit disingenuous because anybody who researched Singapore's housing market would have learnt that the restrictions used to be much more onerous and were heavily liberalized in 1988, in order to pursue an explicit policy of encouraging foreign immigration. In 1996 there was a raft of re-restriction in response to an overheating housing market, which were promptly dismantled in late 1997 after the financial crisis. Then these were re-introduced in 2004 in response etc, dismantled in 2008 in response to the GFC, reintroduced in 2009... If the point is to suppress speculation, such rapidly alternating policy is a funny way to do it. That is to say, modern Singapore (that is, post-1985 neoliberalization) uses foreign ownership of housing as a macroeconomic hammer in the way the Bank of England uses interest rates, and is quite willing to turn the tap on and off from year to year. The country also uses everything from trade union collective wage bargaining to individual pension fund contributions to stabilize the growth rate. The country is tiny, why not. It certainly can't use interest rates, anyway, Chinese funds will flood into the country even at negative real rates. One can confidently predict that Singapore's housing policy will be reliberalized as soon as growth ebbs; the government has released a staggering amount of land from matured reclamation sites and definitely intends to use it. You can buy REITs at ATMs in Singapore, capital gains taxes are zero - the restrictions on speculative loans tie down debt but not full cash purchases, so Singapore's savings-flush middle class are certainly welcome to keep on keeping on. But that's not the interesting point - rather, it is that someone rich enough to buy a house in London lives in (gasp) high-rise public housing back home. Why doesn't Britain have such a mass of public housing? Why does Britain need to rely on - of all things - small-time real-estate investors from Asia to fund its housing construction, to the extent where they dominate private lettings, despite the insane diseconomies of scale? Is it possibly because a noxious politics of housing that make it impossible for the state and large domestic institutional investor alike to provide housing? Nah, couldn't be. And why write several thousand words bemoaning gentrification and neighbourhood transformation and then only mention Singapore, the land of enthusiastic state-approved state-enforced majoritarian gentrification, for the bits that one likes - incidentally bits that are additionally depicted out of the policy context, no less? ronya fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Aug 29, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
So is this terror alert just bullshit to get UKIP off the news?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
It's certainly opportunistic, but there's no harm in acknowledging how many people want to come here to do a terror on us. It's a silly metric though, the only people who need to know about terrorist threats are those who can do something about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
In 'Shutting The Stable Door After The Horse Has Done One' news: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/29/cameron-seize-passports-terror-threats The Guardian posted:Cameron plans to seize suspects' passports in response to terrorist threat i) See, we can't just admit that bombing the poo poo out of foreign countries might make people just a teensy bit pissed off at us. ii) Nice little bit of irony in that last sentence there. I assume he doesn't mean the state terrorism we export, given (i), but you never know, he might have become accidentally self-aware for a second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
tdrules posted:It's certainly opportunistic, but there's no harm in acknowledging how many people want to come here to do a terror on us. How many people? I need to know for my insurance The whole thing's meaningless propaganda bollocks that should be laughed off the airwaves. Instead you get the BBC reporting it with a straight face like it's Highly Important News. Oh hey, Scotland's independence postal ballots just went out too! What are the odds
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Oh hey, Scotland's independence postal ballots just went out too! What are the odds I doubt that's linked. Any given Scot who believes in terror threats etc. might just as easily think "Well, let's stop associating ourselves with this big militaristic power then."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
I was thinking more about spooking undecideds with THREATS of NEBULOUS TERROR we ALL MUST FACE TOGETHER. There's no meaning to it, like tdrules said the people who actually need to know what's going on don't check the news to see what the current Terror Threat™ is. It's purely there to make people uneasy and less willing to contest the UK government. Could be any number of reasons they've decided to toot the horn
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
I figured it was more a chance to go 'hey, don't vote UKIP, we don't like Muslims either!'. I am pretty uncomfortable with stripping passports of 'suspects', but at least it's not stripping their citizenship like they were talking about before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I doubt that's linked. Any given Scot who believes in terror threats etc. might just as easily think "Well, let's stop associating ourselves with this big militaristic power then." 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I think this is enough of a link to repost this excellent article detailing Scotland's robust antiterrorism strategy. Not to mention the related story where the guy was asked what message he would send to terrorists and replied "This is Glasgow. We'll set aboot ye."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Not to mention the related story where the guy was asked what message he would send to terrorists and replied "This is Glasgow. We'll set aboot ye." Happened just down the road from me as well. Makes you proud, so it does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
They mean it, too. Only in Glasgow is the accepted method of dealing with a burning man to kick him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:They mean it, too. Only in Glasgow is the accepted method of dealing with a burning man to kick him. Technically it's Paisley.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I was wondering if anyone here knows much about Personal Independence Payments? My sisters flatmates father died a few weeks ago after a long illness. Then she got got a letter from the DWP saying Dear Ms Smith, Sorry to hear of your fathers death, would you like to continue with his claim for Personal Independence Payments? Does that mean they'll backdate it from when he claimed to the date of death even though he's not around any longer? I don't think she knows anything about when the claim went in or how he was funding his care (though I would assume it was all paid for - he was an alcoholic taxi driver and didn't own his home so I don't think he would have had any assets or means to pay for it himself).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
From when he made the claim to his death is the only thing I can think of that makes sense, although knowing the DWP they'll do you for a false claim or something totally ridiculous. Edit: Anyway, if you're stuck always ask the CAB.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:I was thinking more about spooking undecideds with THREATS of NEBULOUS TERROR we ALL MUST FACE TOGETHER. There's no meaning to it, like tdrules said the people who actually need to know what's going on don't check the news to see what the current Terror Threat™ is. It's purely there to make people uneasy and less willing to contest the UK government. Could be any number of reasons they've decided to toot the horn We are talking about Cameron's specific choice of words etc in addressing it right? rather than the raising of the threat itself? Because my understanding was that the government (or at least the Downing St part of the government) doesn't set the threat level, the various intelligence agencies which are part of the public service do. And given that there have been actual, lethal terrorist bombings in this country you can't entirely write it off as a flight of fancy. I have no doubt the Tories put pressure on their various departments to manipulate stuff like this, and that they certainly aren't above tying it in with current events for their own advantage, but I'd like to think the public service at least partly take their jobs seriously and adjust the threat level based on actual evidence rather than some kind of missive from Downing Street to offset the Scottish referendum or the Great Clacton Defection. Having said that, the existence of some kind of "threat level" is dumb anyway, am I supposed to walk to work instead of take the tube or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
I've scoffed at this change in threat level; our national security isn't under threat, our national interests abroad are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
namesake posted:I've scoffed at this change in threat level; our national security isn't under threat, our national interests abroad are. You don't think Westerners coming back from Syria/Iraq after fighting with ISIS are a threat? They've not been exactly kind to local Syrians and Iraqis either. Edit: personally I don't like the idea of Europeans killing people in foreign countries, whether they do it for their national armies or for ISIS. Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:You don't think Westerners coming back from Syria/Iraq after fighting with ISIS are a threat? They've not been exactly kind to local Syrians and Iraqis either. Seems to me that a lot are getting used as cannon fodder and assuming they survive and there remains an IS they'll probably stay. If by some weird chance they finish a 'tour' and try to come back then sure there's some threat but I doubt it'd ever compare to IRA levels. Kurtofan posted:Edit: personally I don't like the idea of Europeans killing people in foreign countries, whether they do it for their national armies or for ISIS. Agreed it should be stopped but because it's wrong, not because it's a danger to the UK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
freebooter posted:We are talking about Cameron's specific choice of words etc in addressing it right? rather than the raising of the threat itself? Because my understanding was that the government (or at least the Downing St part of the government) doesn't set the threat level, the various intelligence agencies which are part of the public service do. And given that there have been actual, lethal terrorist bombings in this country you can't entirely write it off as a flight of fancy. Technically you're right but the ISC (intelligence and security committee) is made up of both senior intelligence professionals and senior government representatives. They decide what's relevent and also define threat levels, summaries of which are then given to the government. There's a huge amount of political involvement and the intelligence services are in no way capable of pushing an agenda without approval. What comes to the public is filtered through a million layers before it even gets to the ISC, once it gets there it is filtered both by professionals and politicos, if it gets passed to government their own people will once again assess, analyse and filter it further; all before it gets released. Basically all intelligence is subject to so much political oversight in the UK that we hear pretty much whatever the government wants us to hear, no more and no less. Anyone who thinks this sort of information hasn't been spun completely out of shape by the time it gets to the public is a lot more trusting than I am.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
tdrules posted:It's certainly opportunistic, but there's no harm in acknowledging how many people want to come here to do a terror on us. When IS talk about establishing their caliphate, they've never mentioned western europe
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Cerv posted:When IS talk about establishing their caliphate, they've never mentioned western europe Spain, maybe. If that counts as WE. If their goal is to restore the borders of the old Ummayad caliphate, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Spain, maybe. If that counts as WE. If their goal is to restore the borders of the old Ummayad caliphate, anyway. Hey if they want to ressurrect the scientific and tolerant golden age of Al-Andalus I'm all for it
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Hey if they want to ressurrect the scientific and tolerant golden age of Al-Andalus I'm all for it I don't think that's on their agenda. This got posted in the Israel - Palestine Matchday thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5nigZzgf4Y - worth a look, about the only laughs to be had about ISIS really. As much as I think the terrorist threat level indicators are a load of bullshit, it seems that finally in IS we have the sort of danger that politicians have been warning us about for years but was never quite there, finally after giving them a battlefield to hone their skills on we actually have the danger we were warned about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Whenever I get worried about jihadis I just watch Four Lions
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
freebooter posted:We are talking about Cameron's specific choice of words etc in addressing it right? rather than the raising of the threat itself? Because my understanding was that the government (or at least the Downing St part of the government) doesn't set the threat level, the various intelligence agencies which are part of the public service do. And given that there have been actual, lethal terrorist bombings in this country you can't entirely write it off as a flight of fancy. Well someone might know more about the actual bureaucracy involved in how the reading on The Terrormeter is agreed and when it's adjusted, but the point is that its real value - if any - is to the intelligence agencies who actually deal with this stuff. Like you said, to the average person it's basically useless information, you can't act on it, it doesn't make any difference. But it's being publicly announced, by members of the government - so as far as we're concerned, it's a political tool being used to influence the public. It's propaganda, used to scare people and build consensus for the government's activities, and as a distraction so other news can be buried. I mean look at the actual announcements that have been made: quote:The Home Secretary today announced that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre has changed the threat level from international terrorism from substantial to severe. So basically - according to the government at least - there's no intelligence suggesting that an attack is going to take place, just that there are 'plots', some of which are 'likely' to involve people who travelled there to fight. I'm sure there's a bit more to it than that, but as far as public messaging is concerned, this is what the government's chosen to announce, and use as justification for a raft of measures they're announcing. Whether you think the measures are justified or not, that's what this is about - banging a drum loudly. The timing might not be down to the government (who does decide though?), but they'll sure as hell run with it Also this was weird quote:Mr Cameron said the murder of Mr Foley was "clear evidence - not that any more was needed - that this is not some far-off [problem], thousands of miles away, that we can ignore". 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Whenever I get worried about jihadis I just watch Four Lions Yeah, I bet it would have calmed those silly Yezedis down a bit if we had airdropped a few copies onto Mount Sinjar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Tortuga posted:Yeah, I bet it would have calmed those silly Yezedis down a bit if we had airdropped a few copies onto Mount Sinjar. It was a joke, idiot. Nothing kills the fear of super earnest fundamentalism like ridicule. Still, ISIS are loving terrifying and need to be stopped ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:It was a joke, idiot. Nothing kills the fear of super earnest fundamentalism like ridicule. Still, ISIS are loving terrifying and need to be stopped ASAP. They will strike the UK and the Conservatives will win a proper majority, your country makes up most of ISIS fighters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:They will strike the UK and the Conservatives will win a proper majority, your country makes up most of ISIS fighters. I thought Germany had just as many? Edit: Also I'm pretty sure there's quite a few Iraqis and Syrians in IS too! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:You don't think Westerners coming back from Syria/Iraq after fighting with ISIS are a threat? They've not been exactly kind to local Syrians and Iraqis either. Not particularly, no - or at least not a bigger risk than they did before they left, because unless there's been a really spectacular cockup in airport security and they've been allowed to bring their AK47s back with them then they're just as likely to be a domestic threat when they come back as they were when they left. After all before they left they were already radicalised enough to, you know, travel half way round the world to fight in a war. I'm certain if there was any actual intelligence stating a specific threat then Cameron would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops (also the actual awareness state used in Government buildings would have shifted, which it hasn't). Having said all that I think people are reading too much into it by trying to link it to either UKIP or Scotland - this is more about Cameron wanting to look like a Tough Decisive Leader who is On Top Of Things. If anything it's probably a reaction to Boris and his empty posturing about terrorism. Cameron gets to look all important and statesmanlike, and appearing to actually do something (the passports thing and this raising of the threat level) while BOZZER LEGERND bustles about going "Erm cripes we could probably just lock them all up or something?".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Still, ISIS are loving terrifying and need to be stopped ASAP. I'm pretty sure if we just offered support to Syria and Iran on whatever terms they wished then the people of the middle east might just grow sick of loving mental Jihadis on their own without our tanks barging in uninvited and giving justification to ISIS on the existence of external western threat. Or I mean we could just hope that third time is lucky and this time we won't piss anyone off in the places that used to let women go unattended and without Hijab to university, before we hosed their poo poo up first time round e; to clarify I'm absolutely pro military intervention if it's what they ask for, but the Wahabis arent saying they've gone too far out of humanist concern. ISIS are doing the pro-west PR work for us, they've got no central structure worth speaking of, and gleefully torturing people is not going to win the locals over long-term. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I'm pretty sure if we just offered support to Syria and Iran on whatever terms they wished then the people of the middle east might just grow sick of loving mental Jihadis on their own without our tanks barging in uninvited and giving justification to ISIS on the existence of external western threat. I didn't specify how they needed to be stopped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I didn't specify how they needed to be stopped. My point was that they're going to stop themselves. Left alone there's no reason to think they won't collapse. What needs to happen is damage control while waiting for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
The threat probably isn't from returning ISIS fighters, and there isn't really much evidence of that happening in other European countries before. But idiots who idolize them who dont have the capabilty/stones to go and join them will probably try something at some point, as they have in the past (it's a thin line between being like the characters in Three Lions and actually killing people). It's not outlandish to say that that's likely. Whether that will have any effect on people's lives is another question. I don't think the  threat level has ever been less than severe in NI and most people there get by fine.
Tortuga fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Not particularly, no - or at least not a bigger risk than they did before they left, because unless there's been a really spectacular cockup in airport security and they've been allowed to bring their AK47s back with them then they're just as likely to be a domestic threat when they come back as they were when they left. After all before they left they were already radicalised enough to, you know, travel half way round the world to fight in a war. It's a question of how deep down the rabbit hole they go once they're out there. Will they be more prepared and more willing once they get back? I think there's certainly a danger of that, and I don't understand how you can be so dismissive about it. tooterfish fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:My point was that they're going to stop themselves. Left alone there's no reason to think they won't collapse. What needs to happen is damage control while waiting for that. Problem is, what if they don't collapse? There's only so long you can go as a passive actor in the face of this sort of thing before you become partially culpable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
The uk is pretty culpable as it is
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Problem is, what if they don't collapse? There's only so long you can go as a passive actor in the face of this sort of thing before you become partially culpable. We are culpable in the sense that we're associated with America's shambolic handling of the middle east, so there's no reason to think this is a concern. If ISIS have an end game and an ability to lead then we're just sending troops to be massacred anyway. If they don't win popularity locally, and they won't while they're on the current course, they'll collapse within two years. Any hint of the west getting involved will give legitimacy to fascist movements inside the caliphate, so the current plan of "get everyone out of the way, wait" is perfectly legitimate provided we do actually get people to safety. It's not "wait and see" as much as it is trying to learn the lessons we did with the IRA; getting all bolshy about handling terrorists is the single best thing that can happen for them. So unless it looks like their target countries start getting massively onside, it's a bad idea to fight them on their terms. The long term question is; we know who's funding middle eastern terrorists, are we going to tell Putin to gently caress right off or are we unable to act?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Putin won't be funnelling anything to IS, they're carting around more gear from the US due to their gains in Iraq, although Soviet stuff from Syria will be everywhere as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 22:00
|
|