Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@ DINLT

How many aircraft carriers do you think we need with a theoretical naval air corps to replace half of the RAF.

As for a theoretical army air corps, it would still be possible to divide it into smaller groups, of which the dam busters can be one. So this vernable unit can continue long into the future.

 itsonlyme wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/20/small-firms-create-jobs-pro-eu-big-business/

I'm just going to leave here in regards to fears of the impact of the single market and the EU on the UK.

1) That is breitbart which basically invalidates it immediately.

2) Notice it says they rely less, not that they do not rely at all. If they are operating solely in the UK then it being in the single market will not affect them either way. As soon as they start trying to sell their products to EU countries, or import goods from the EU to make their products, they are now relying on the single market.

3) Just because they employ more, does not mean that their overall contribution to the economy is greater.

On a side note, better late than never, I would say.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/britain-will-posthumously-pardon-thousands-of-gay-and-bisexual-men/ar-AAjbBRl?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/20/small-firms-create-jobs-pro-eu-big-business/

I'm just going to leave here in regards to fears of the impact of the single market and the EU on the UK.

1) That is breitbart which basically invalidates it immediately.

2) Notice it says they rely less, not that they do not rely at all. If they are operating solely in the UK then it being in the single market will not affect them either way. As soon as they start trying to sell their products to EU countries, or import goods from the EU to make their products, they are now relying on the single market.

3) Just because they employ more, does not mean that their overall contribution to the economy is greater.

I wasn't aware that the media was general unbias, as such simply saying it's because its from X outlet really the best way to begin an argument, I tend to read more alternative media these days (even those have become increasingly more bias). The media these days is more about posting the writers personal opinion than actually posting facts, if they post facts its usually only sprinkled with them. Key examples are when they Talk of Hillary being in the clear, when you actually watch the congress Videos you see a very different picture being presented. It's worth remember that by creating more jobs and relying less on the single market, this is something we need post brexit if the EU us unable to come to a deal, especially given how countries such as Poland are unlikely to budge on freedom of movement which for many, would be against the one of the principles of the Brexit (which is a massive middle finger to the globalists).

 Whirlwind wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:

I'm not saying anything will magically happen, but having a weaker pound isn't exactly a weakness, it can certainly allow us to increase the trade we already have if the lower price increases demand (which it may well do), we can focus on tourism because of the lower prices of holidays to the UK. Part of this does depend on other trade deals we make with countries outside the EU (such as those within the commonwealth). Asia will always be a issue while it undercuts everyone, we will just have see. But you can't say that our products being cheaper will not make them more attractive to those overseas.

The pound needs to be at a value that balances the needs of all the economy. We can't rely only on manufacturing. Some products may be more attractive but not necessarily all of them. We have very little raw resources in the UK (except coal, granite, the remains of North sea oil and a few others). Other than that we have no raw materials so Iron, Aluminium, oil, gas, rare earth metals and so on all have to be imported. Manufacturers will need these materials and increases in price will inevitably feed through into the final products. If we had raw materials that we had available to us then it would be a different issue, but apart from jam and biscuit making (hardly an economically viable strategy) having a weak £ can be just as bad as having a strong £. You need a balanced £ reflective of the economy at large. Focusing on tourism (I'd also point out that actual tourism expenditure is down according to the August 15 - July 16 figures, even though numbers are up so the benefit of tourism is less than the raw figures suggest) is not going to help vast areas of the Country; it's hardly going to help Hull, Grimsby and any other area where tourism is negligible - it might help certain areas like Cornwall, but putting all your eggs in one basket leaves you susceptible to ever rising and fall of perception of where to holiday

Finally a very low £ can also be bad news for the local economy. If the £ falls so low that foreign individuals can buy the products at a higher price in £ but still much lower in their lower currency then all this does is drive local prices upwards rapidly. Food would be particularly vulnerable here.


.

Sorry, I almost forgot to respond to you, my bad. I don't believe I was saying that we simply focus on tourism, but as we seeing a boost in it because of the lower pound, this is a strength, obviously this won't be a boost to the entire country, places like London can certainly benefit from as can all the local business, you have many who visit london simply to visit places such as the Oxford Circus Topman/Topshop store (being that's it the largest in the world and the flagship store). Then of course you have talk of London Paramount which can only benefit from a lower pound. A lower pound can also be a boost to farming making our meats more attractive and of course more profitable (which is a problem we have atm because of the monopoly large supermarkets have lowering the profits which is simply distributed to shareholders. Raw materials will certainly be a issue, hopefully with a smaller lower skill workforce, hopefully wages won't be depressed because of the massive pool of workers and those who are willing to work for min wage, even in London. Hopefully with a lower demand in property which is a massive issue in London which is slowly make it way through to rest of the UK as many are forces out, will of set the raise in living costs. But this is a rather large gamble, the way things are going even within the EU, the cost of living in a City is getting beyond a joke, £1000 a month for a room in Camden....

I freely accept I may not be as knowledgeable as other on this subject, but I think we need a slghtly more optimistic mindset when looking at Brexit, rather than doom and gloom the globalists like to present us with.

How is it not a EU issue if the quotas are issued by the EU that favor other countries to the point of killing our fishing industry.

As I pointed out the fishing quotas are based on what the EU asks scientists what they believe is sustainable. These are then allocated accordingly. The UK does fairly well out of it apparently because of it's location and being surrounded by the sea. It's not the EU that determines that 6 companies get 80% of the market share. I am not in favour of killing any industry, but I would prefer to deal with the actual problem not the more easier target of blame. Suppose after leaving the EU we did get rid of quotas, then yes the local fishermen with one small trawler would be able to go out no more than twice a day and catch what they want. But the same rules would apply to the big multinational fishing companies as well and they are more than likely to send out every ship in their fleet with multiple crews several times a day. Things may be rosy for a 10-20 years but when the fishing stocks collapse (as evidenced by the grand banks fiasco) then who is it going to hit. The big fleets will just pick up their anchor, make people redundant and move the fleets to better fishing areas. The local fishermen will not have this option; their fishing future will be ruined for at least a generation.

However there is an alternative. You keep the EU fishing quotas to keep things sustainable but you allow single fleet ships of a low hull size (and limited types of nets) unlimited catch twice per day. The big businesses then get the remainder of the allowance that the individual fishermen don't use. Effectively you swap the local fishermen from being given the dregs to being able to catch what they want and you leave the big businesses the remainder (lets say 50%). None of this can be implemented by the EU - it has to come from the UK government as they set the allowances for the companies.

Are you disputing that many of the quotas have favoured the french over the English? I don't dispute that isn't in part a government problem, but it's still a globalist government that favours big business over the independent trader, we can't lay all of the blame at on the UK governments door. But I do agree that disrupting the business more fairly would be a very positive move.

Sorry, they way this comes out when trying to read it while tying looks a little confusing, if I miss anything just point me to it

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 itsonlyme wrote:
Lets just hope we hurry up out of the corrupt EU before those insane liberals destroy the country with their naive few of the world and failed experiment that was multiculturalism.

All hail the master race that are the British!!!!

Nice attempt at trying to bring in racism, your typical moronic liberal response. How do you feel "multiculturalism" have actually panned out? from my experience I am yet to see any real integration, i see pockets of different cultures living together and only really interacting when forced to at work. multiculturalism is nothing more than an attempt to destroy national identity by the globalists so when a countries sovereignty is destroyed, those living in the country won't care as they have no ties to country they are living in. Lets ask Germany, Sweden and France about how culturally enriched they feel through the refugee crisis. Those far left idiots who go on about "multiculturalism" tend to be the same type protesting about gender pronouns (such as in Toronto).

 itsonlyme wrote:

I wasn't aware that the media was general unbias, as such simply saying it's because its from X outlet really the best way to begin an argument, I tend to read more alternative media these days (even those have become increasingly more bias). The media these days is more about posting the writers personal opinion than actually posting facts, if they post facts its usually only sprinkled with them.

There's the media, then there's THE media, then there's the 'media'.

If I open a copy of the The Times, I know its political slant, and I know the business interests of the owner. I can thus accordingly extract the facts from the ommissions and opinion.

There are certain media publications though, where if any of the facts are present, it's more by happy coincidence than deliberate intent. The Daily Mail wanders back and forth across that border, RT and Breitbart are solidly on the wrong side of it. It's like quoting the Prophecies of Zion as proof of Israeli foreign policy, or reading tea leaves. You might end up being right, but it will be purely by chance.

 Ketara wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:

I wasn't aware that the media was general unbias, as such simply saying it's because its from X outlet really the best way to begin an argument, I tend to read more alternative media these days (even those have become increasingly more bias). The media these days is more about posting the writers personal opinion than actually posting facts, if they post facts its usually only sprinkled with them.

There's the media, then there's THE media, then there's the 'media'.

If I open a copy of the The Times, I know its political slant, and I know the business interests of the owner. I can thus accordingly extract the facts from the ommissions and opinion.

There are certain media publications though, where if any of the facts are present, it's more by happy coincidence than deliberate intent. The Daily Mail wanders back and forth across that border, RT and Breitbart are solidly on the wrong side of it. It's like quoting the Prophecies of Zion as proof of Israeli foreign policy, or reading tea leaves. You might end up being right, but it will be purely by chance.

I tend to ignore anything that relates to Zion and the Israeli's. No one can honestly say that one set of media is more biased than another, usually if you read the all of it, in the middle you get a sense of what's actually going on. I think most media these days is about 80/90% opinion, it's usually either pro-globalism or against in some way or another. Stuff like the Sun is simply trash with a page of nice tits (sometimes).

 itsonlyme wrote:

I tend to ignore anything that relates to Zion and the Israeli's. No one can honestly say that one set of media is more biased than another,

One set of media can easily be more biased than another. It all depends on the people who work for any given publication, what their motivations are, and how those contend with the motivations and control of the editors and owners on any given subject or topic. The Telegraph, for example, is infinitely less 'biased' than the National Socialist Party newsletter in practically every field.

You're conflating the fact that all forms of media possess 'bias' with the idea that all publications are equally biased (untrue).

usually if you read the all of it, in the middle you get a sense of what's actually going on.

If I read the Chronicles of Narnia for my understanding of contemporary politics, it will contribute little. Breitbart and RT aren't really much above that when it comes to relevant factual content. Seriously.

 Ketara wrote:


You're conflating the fact that all forms of media possess 'bias' with the idea that all publications are equally biased (untrue).

It depends if your talking on per articles basis or in the grand scope of the articles they cover, due to the wide range of articles they cover, it is easier to speak in a general sense that on a specific topic. I find Breitbart will recover a lot of topic in other articles such as the attack on the sky news team in Calais, your saying that the article isn't valid simply because it was posted by breitbart (I can't say I saw a whole lot Zionist talk in that). It was simply a less detailed version of the article. These kind of discussion of breaking down what was said bit by bit work both ways.

 itsonlyme wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


You're conflating the fact that all forms of media possess 'bias' with the idea that all publications are equally biased (untrue).

It depends if your talking on per articles basis or in the grand scope of the articles they cover, due to the wide range of articles they cover, it is easier to speak in a general sense that on a specific topic. I find Breitbart will recover a lot of topic in other articles such as the attack on the sky news team in Calais, your saying that the article isn't valid simply because it was posted by breitbart (I can't say I saw a whole lot Zionist talk in that). It was simply a less detailed version of the article. These kind of discussion of breaking down what was said bit by bit work both ways.

Like I said, I'm not discounting the possibility that Breitbart might put out an article every once in a blue moon that has some facts in it. But it's a rare enough occurrence within the stuff they put out that generally speaking, if you want to prove a point, you should be able to find a more credible source saying the same thing somewhere else. In the same way that nobody takes you seriously if you quote the Daily Mail on anything to do with what causes cancer, quoting Breitbart on political affairs is wasting everybody's time.

 Ketara wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


You're conflating the fact that all forms of media possess 'bias' with the idea that all publications are equally biased (untrue).

It depends if your talking on per articles basis or in the grand scope of the articles they cover, due to the wide range of articles they cover, it is easier to speak in a general sense that on a specific topic. I find Breitbart will recover a lot of topic in other articles such as the attack on the sky news team in Calais, your saying that the article isn't valid simply because it was posted by breitbart (I can't say I saw a whole lot Zionist talk in that). It was simply a less detailed version of the article. These kind of discussion of breaking down what was said bit by bit work both ways.

Like I said, I'm not discounting the possibility that Breitbart might put out an article every once in a blue moon that has some facts in it. But it's a rare enough occurrence within the stuff they put out that generally speaking, if you want to prove a point, you should be able to find a more credible source saying the same thing somewhere else. In the same way that nobody takes you seriously if you quote the Daily Mail on anything to do with what causes cancer, quoting Breitbart on political affairs is wasting everybody's time.

True, true, but even your example of the Daily Telegraph is fraught with danger, because we now know that the Telegraph didn't dare criticise HSBC for fear of losing advertising revenue.

Even the much vaunted BBC buckled under pressure from government in the run up to the Iraq war and ran the most blatantly biased articles in favour of invasion, and when the Director General stood up to Blair, he lost his job...

In short, you can't really trust any media for the truth...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

How many aircraft carriers do you think we need with a theoretical naval air corps to replace half of the RAF.

As for a theoretical army air corps, it would still be possible to divide it into smaller groups, of which the dam busters can be one. So this vernable unit can continue long into the future.

One giant aircraft carrier and a few escort carriers would do me fine.

 Ketara wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


You're conflating the fact that all forms of media possess 'bias' with the idea that all publications are equally biased (untrue).

It depends if your talking on per articles basis or in the grand scope of the articles they cover, due to the wide range of articles they cover, it is easier to speak in a general sense that on a specific topic. I find Breitbart will recover a lot of topic in other articles such as the attack on the sky news team in Calais, your saying that the article isn't valid simply because it was posted by breitbart (I can't say I saw a whole lot Zionist talk in that). It was simply a less detailed version of the article. These kind of discussion of breaking down what was said bit by bit work both ways.

Like I said, I'm not discounting the possibility that Breitbart might put out an article every once in a blue moon that has some facts in it. But it's a rare enough occurrence within the stuff they put out that generally speaking, if you want to prove a point, you should be able to find a more credible source saying the same thing somewhere else. In the same way that nobody takes you seriously if you quote the Daily Mail on anything to do with what causes cancer, quoting Breitbart on political affairs is wasting everybody's time.

Well already have and in fact, your using the article source as attempt to discredit my opinion rather than simply looking at the article and deciding for yourself. As said before, the media is a joke regardless of who is posting it. I suppose the articles on breitbart about the "kids" that came from the jungle in Calais are just another example of once in a bluemoon? Maybe the article about the EU Appeals to Migrants to Remain in Africa? Bias? More than likely, its the media, its overpaid idiots who think it's their job to write the narrative and direct public opinion rather than give the public hard facts. I think your grossly over exaggerating what you said about Breitbart.

RT I have no idea, I've rarely paid it attention, but everything seems to be the Russians fault atm, that's Hillary's answer to the Wikkileaks!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
True, true, but even your example of the Daily Telegraph is fraught with danger, because we now know that the Telegraph didn't dare criticise HSBC for fear of losing advertising revenue.

And? To re-iterate myself earlier:-

You're conflating the fact that all forms of media possess 'bias' with the idea that all publications are equally biased (untrue).

There is something in between accepting all sources blindly on faith and rejecting all sources as 'biased media'.

In short, you can't really trust any media for the truth...

Primarily because there's no such thing. Anyone looking for the 'truth' is sure to fail, and anyone convinced they've found it is delusional at best.

itsonlyme wrote:
Well already have and in fact, your using the article source as attempt to discredit my opinion

I'm not, on account of the fact that I didn't care enough about the original topic of debate to even remember what it was. I was simply pointing that being surprised/offended when people brush off your use of Breitbart to substantiate any sort of viewpoint is wasting your time; on account of the fact that Breitbart is generally rubbish on practically every level and most people are aware of that. There are plenty of right wing rags out there that'll do a more thorough journalistic job on any given subject than Breitbart from that angle, it's not like there aren't alternative sources if you need to source a story or fact.

If you want to be taken seriously by other people, at the end of the day you need to quote sources that are at least moderately respectable. Any story worth reading on Breitbart could be found in a variety of other more reliable publications. And if you can't find it in any of them, or only in the naff ones like Fox or the Canary? Then it probably is rubbish.

The Daily Telegraph wasn't biased over HSBC, it's what it omitted that was the problem!

HSBC didn't exist as far as the Telegraph was concerned!

But I agree with the rest of your point, Ketara...

 Ketara wrote:

I'm not, on account of the fact that I didn't care enough about the original topic of debate to even remember what it was. I was simply pointing that being surprised/offended when people brush off your use of Breitbart to substantiate any sort of viewpoint is wasting your time; on account of the fact that Breitbart is generally rubbish on practically every level and most people are aware of that. There are plenty of right wing rags out there that'll do a more thorough journalistic job on any given subject than Breitbart from that angle, it's not like there aren't alternative sources if you need to source a story or fact.

If you want to be taken seriously by other people, at the end of the day you need to quote sources that are at least moderately respectable. Any story worth reading on Breitbart could be found in a variety of other more reliable publications. And if you can't find it in any of them, or only in the naff ones like Fox or the Canary? Then it probably is rubbish.

Most media is rubbish, right now most of it reporting the saber rattling of Russia and America, the BBC is constantly going on about the damns right wing and Islamophobia, half the media at one point was labelling anyone who supported Brexit a racist! Honestly, you can make a point to discredit media and a valid source based on a topic. Just because it does post a lot nonsense doesn't mean it doesn't have a few valid ones (which is the same with all media). Interesting however you mention Fox and not CNN

 itsonlyme wrote:
I think your grossly over exaggerating what you said about Breitbart.

It has pop up ads for Donald Trump. Endorsing such an idiotic presidential candidate demonstrates a clear lack of connection with any facts.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

jouso wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the fisheries policy of the European Union (EU). It sets quotas for which member states are allowed to catch what amounts of each type of fish, as well as encouraging the fishing industry by various market interventions.

Pretty sure the UK doesn't set the Quotas, regardless of what you think you've pointed out

Find where I said the UK sets the quotas then. I'll wait, but not very long.

I was implying because the UK doesn't set the quotas and the EU does, the EU's quotas are a big part of the reason we've had the decline in the fishing industry.

@whirlwind - I'll come to you later :p

That's more to do with the state of current fish stocks than anything else.

The UK has 13% of the (current) EU sea area but gets 30% of total quota (2nd largest), so hardly in a position to feel wronged.

Does this factor in fish going abroad? fishing vessels catching fish from UK waters bit not landed within the UK or sold on UK markets?

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-pinching-our-fish/

Quotas are allocated to countries for a certain fish species and sea region, then each country allocates it by vessel or company.

Say the UK gets 40% of all the hake quota in Northern Azores, the UK fisheries authority then it allocates it to whatever vessels/ports/co-op/whatever.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:
I think your grossly over exaggerating what you said about Breitbart.

It has pop up ads for Donald Trump. Endorsing such an idiotic presidential candidate demonstrates a clear lack of connection with any facts.

And you think crooked Hillary is such an amazing candidate? I've seen enough from the congress videos alone to make me question why anyone would want that idiot in office (but that's better left for the US politics thread).

I'd just like to make a few points about the 100 year experiment of the Royal Air Force, I do know one or two things about it.
There are several reasons why the armed forces maintain their separated structure, but the primary one, and it's very important, is specialisation.
Simply put, the roles of each service are very specific and require dedicated professionals. The RAF particularly so when compared to its sister services. It requires a huge amount of training to fly, maintain and support even one squadron and the RAF has been on continuous operations for decades. More so than the Navy in fact. Especially as the RAF is frequently the first asset used in any conflict we're involved in.
It is also the primary means of defence of the UK and our overseas interests. Russian Nuclear capable Bear aircraft frequently probe our airspace,and attempt to penetrate it, alongside their naval counterparts. Typhoon aircraft are our first line of defence, and they cover the UK, and the Falklands 24 hours a day.
If the RAF was rolled into a UK defence force it would swiftly disintegrate into nothing as the other services would simply not devote the resources to it to maintain basic operational capacity.
The Fleet air arm, and the army air corps are small, often overlooked appendages to their parent service, and could not fulfill the roles that the RAF currently perform, even with the RAF's current assets at their disposal.
All you would effectively do is rebrand the RAF, not disband it, but then it is likely to become an even more expensive arm than it currently is as Generals and Admirals who's focus on Destroyers and Tanks, would genuinely have no idea how to co-ordinate and effectively project Air-Power.
TBH, people occasionally pop up and say we'd be better off "saving" money by folding the RAF up. They usually have only the tiniest idea of what actually involved in modern force projection and defence, and think the the RAF is basically a bunch of old boys gadding about in Spitfires.
I'm afraid that's simply not true, the RAF will continue as a separate service almost certainly indefinitely. Unless all three services are collapsed and rolled into one Defence force. At which point you may as well not even bother pretending to be able to defend yourself and your assets, and start being very, very diplomatic to everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 itsonlyme wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:
I think your grossly over exaggerating what you said about Breitbart.

It has pop up ads for Donald Trump. Endorsing such an idiotic presidential candidate demonstrates a clear lack of connection with any facts.

And you think crooked Hillary is such an amazing candidate? I've seen enough from the congress videos alone to make me question why anyone would want that idiot in office (but that's better left for the US politics thread).

No one thinks she's an amazing candidate, but she's head and shoulders above the man who even Nigel Farage thinks is a bit of a dick.
If you're not sure of that, then you may have recently been drinking, or suffered a blow to the head.

"Less gak than the other candidate" is still gak.

If I was American, I would probably abstain in this election.

 r_squared wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 itsonlyme wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:
I think your grossly over exaggerating what you said about Breitbart.

It has pop up ads for Donald Trump. Endorsing such an idiotic presidential candidate demonstrates a clear lack of connection with any facts.

And you think crooked Hillary is such an amazing candidate? I've seen enough from the congress videos alone to make me question why anyone would want that idiot in office (but that's better left for the US politics thread).

No one thinks she's an amazing candidate, but she's head and shoulders above the man who even Nigel Farage thinks is a bit of a dick.
If you're not sure of that, then you may have recently been drinking, or suffered a blow to the head.

No disrespect but the women should be in prison, to the point that congress is gunning for her. The women is so corrupt I can't believe anyone would actually take that women seriously, especially after her and Bill's KKK connections. But she's backed by George Soros, it's no wonder what's been going on with her has been downplayed, again, you'd have to watch the Congress videos on the subject rather than read the pro-globalism papers. I just find her reactions about how Trump has been treating women (funny the timing) given who she's still married to! Seems ok for her Husband to do it. Honestly, I can't take the women seriously.

 r_squared wrote:
I'd just like to make a few points about the 100 year experiment of the Royal Air Force, I do know one or two things about it.
There are several reasons why the armed forces maintain their separated structure, but the primary one, and it's very important, is specialisation.
Simply put, the roles of each service are very specific and require dedicated professionals. The RAF particularly so when compared to its sister services. It requires a huge amount of training to fly, maintain and support even one squadron and the RAF has been on continuous operations for decades. More so than the Navy in fact. Especially as the RAF is frequently the first asset used in any conflict we're involved in.
It is also the primary means of defence of the UK and our overseas interests. Russian Nuclear capable Bear aircraft frequently probe our airspace,and attempt to penetrate it, alongside their naval counterparts. Typhoon aircraft are our first line of defence, and they cover the UK, and the Falklands 24 hours a day.
If the RAF was rolled into a UK defence force it would swiftly disintegrate into nothing as the other services would simply not devote the resources to it to maintain basic operational capacity.
The Fleet air arm, and the army air corps are small, often overlooked appendages to their parent service, and could not fulfill the roles that the RAF currently perform, even with the RAF's current assets at their disposal.
All you would effectively do is rebrand the RAF, not disband it, but then it is likely to become an even more expensive arm than it currently is as Generals and Admirals who's focus on Destroyers and Tanks, would genuinely have no idea how to co-ordinate and effectively project Air-Power.
TBH, people occasionally pop up and say we'd be better off "saving" money by folding the RAF up. They usually have only the tiniest idea of what actually involved in modern force projection and defence, and think the the RAF is basically a bunch of old boys gadding about in Spitfires.
I'm afraid that's simply not true, the RAF will continue as a separate service almost certainly indefinitely. Unless all three services are collapsed and rolled into one Defence force. At which point you may as well not even bother pretending to be able to defend yourself and your assets, and start being very, very diplomatic to everyone.

The crux of your argument appears to be that you think Generals and Admirals will all be incompetent if placed in charge of substantial aerial assets. It's an interesting mission statement and purpose for the existence of the RAF. 'We stop your other military commanders being dumb'.

 itsonlyme wrote:


Sorry, I almost forgot to respond to you, my bad.

No worries, we all have lives to lead and jobs to perform!

 itsonlyme wrote:
I don't believe I was saying that we simply focus on tourism, but as we seeing a boost in it because of the lower pound, this is a strength, obviously this won't be a boost to the entire country, places like London can certainly benefit from as can all the local business, you have many who visit london simply to visit places such as the Oxford Circus Topman/Topshop store (being that's it the largest in the world and the flagship store).

No you weren't but the principle of a low £ is that it only benefits certain areas. Because of our complex mixed work base we need a balanced £ to keep things stable. Too high or too low and part of your economy struggles which can have then have implications over the whole economy. There is a focus on certain elements a low £ can be good for which is correct, but then conversely it can be bad news for other areas and maybe in the same field (such as tourism where a low £ can be good for foreign tourists but bad for UK tourists as prices are driven higher by external demand as well as the holiday agents etc).

Also there is little evidence yet that tourism is actually being boosted by the weakening £. Yes, numbers are up, but actual revenue is down 1% (Aug 15 - July 16 figures) http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/bulletins/overseastravelandtourism/provisionalresultsforjuly2016. That effectively means with the weakened £ foreign tourists can afford more but spend less.

 itsonlyme wrote:
A lower pound can also be a boost to farming making our meats more attractive and of course more profitable (which is a problem we have atm because of the monopoly large supermarkets have lowering the profits which is simply distributed to shareholders.

Yet again that can hurt UK citizens, especially those on the lowest wages. With increased demand because we are relatively cheap means that foreign companies can buy more for less than they use to. That drives prices up locally meaning people either eat less well, or spend less on luxuries. That can lead to a downturn in your own economy. Yes I agree the supermarkets do take farmers for everything they have, but trashing the £ is not the solution because it isn't a balanced approach.

 itsonlyme wrote:
Hopefully with a lower demand in property which is a massive issue in London which is slowly make it way through to rest of the UK as many are forces out, will of set the raise in living costs. But this is a rather large gamble, the way things are going even within the EU, the cost of living in a City is getting beyond a joke, £1000 a month for a room in Camden....

But then look at the alternative. A lot of central London properties are bought by foreign investors. A 20% reduction in the £ means what used to cost A £1m now for these people is effectively £800k. That's £200K they can now spend on another house (or bigger house). That can drive prices higher because they can afford more for same value of Euro/Dollar/etc. The idea that housing prices may collapse is dependent on losing the banking industry and the high paid jobs that would take with it. However a weak £ and not losing the banking industry is only likely to make costs worse not better!

Are you disputing that many of the quotas have favoured the french over the English? I don't dispute that isn't in part a government problem, but it's still a globalist government that favours big business over the independent trader, we can't lay all of the blame at on the UK governments door. But I do agree that disrupting the business more fairly would be a very positive move.

I think I have already linked to the quotas that show this isn't true. The UK gets a very good outcome from the quotas. That the majority of this though goes to the multinational big businesses. I wonder whether this may be where the perception comes from that the French getter a better 'deal'. If the UK government awards the quotas to these multinational (but UK registered companies) then there is nothing stopping them using French or other nations fleets to fish on their behalf. If that is the case (and it is only surmising at this point) then that would give the impression that that Foreign fishermen are doing better from the quotas. The big businesses are not using British fleets, but rather Spanish, French or whatever. That would give the impression other countries are getting a better deal, but in reality they are not - it's just who the big businesses are hiring. But again this is a British government issue not an EU one.

Nice attempt at trying to bring in racism, your typical moronic liberal response. How do you feel "multiculturalism" have actually panned out? from my experience I am yet to see any real integration, i see pockets of different cultures living together and only really interacting when forced to at work. multiculturalism is nothing more than an attempt to destroy national identity by the globalists so when a countries sovereignty is destroyed, those living in the country won't care as they have no ties to country they are living in. Lets ask Germany, Sweden and France about how culturally enriched they feel through the refugee crisis. Those far left idiots who go on about "multiculturalism" tend to be the same type protesting about gender pronouns (such as in Toronto).

Not racism, bigotry. Attempting to isolate communities and keep others out based on where they are from is a form of bigotry.

As for examples of working multiculturalism try Leicester (or any University for that matter). When you see the sort of behaviour that has been going on in the weeks since the vote then can you really blame people for not integrating. Integration has to be both ways, something that a lot of people in the UK fail to understand. Also I'm afraid to burst the bubble but the whole human race is based of multiculturalism. We all migrated from Africa in 2 (perhaps 3 waves); bred with Neanderthals and have mixed over and over. Even down to the stone age there is evidence of trade and multiculturalism from sites at Stonehenge etc. We have never been isolated. The only difference now is that it can happen faster because of better transport. You will never be able to just wall yourself off and avoid people from other nations or cultures. And if you do it infers you think less of these cultures and is effectively bigotry and can lead to things like the Apartheid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 itsonlyme wrote:


No disrespect but the women should be in prison, to the point that congress is gunning for her. The women is so corrupt I can't believe anyone would actually take that women seriously, especially after her and Bill's KKK connections. But she's backed by George Soros, it's no wonder what's been going on with her has been downplayed, again, you'd have to watch the Congress videos on the subject rather than read the pro-globalism papers. I just find her reactions about how Trump has been treating women (funny the timing) given who she's still married to! Seems ok for her Husband to do it. Honestly, I can't take the women seriously.

Can we leave the Green/Liberal/Hilary/Trump debate for the US politics thread please?

 Whirlwind wrote:
No you weren't but the principle of a low £ is that it only benefits certain areas. Because of our complex mixed work base we need a balanced £ to keep things stable. Too high or too low and part of your economy struggles which can have then have implications over the whole economy. There is a focus on certain elements a low £ can be good for which is correct, but then conversely it can be bad news for other areas and maybe in the same field (such as tourism where a low £ can be good for foreign tourists but bad for UK tourists as prices are driven higher by external demand as well as the holiday agents etc).

Also there is little evidence yet that tourism is actually being boosted by the weakening £. Yes, numbers are up, but actual revenue is down 1% (Aug 15 - July 16 figures) http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/bulletins/overseastravelandtourism/provisionalresultsforjuly2016. That effectively means with the weakened £ foreign tourists can afford more but spend less.

I think it's far to early to say given its only been a few months, this whole part of post is nothing but speculation and given how short a period its been its very hard to say what the long term is going to be, I like to look on the more optimistic side, we should however have a plan for worse.

 itsonlyme wrote:
Yet again that can hurt UK citizens, especially those on the lowest wages. With increased demand because we are relatively cheap means that foreign companies can buy more for less than they use to. That drives prices up locally meaning people either eat less well, or spend less on luxuries. That can lead to a downturn in your own economy. Yes I agree the supermarkets do take farmers for everything they have, but trashing the £ is not the solution because it isn't a balanced approach.

As I don't really know how this effects the relative costs, do it make more locally produced more attractive when compared to imported? hard to say without knowing a proper comparison. I think we can expect an increase in prices in all foods now, like I previous said, i am hoping that this can be offset by a reduction in rental costs.

 itsonlyme wrote:
But then look at the alternative. A lot of central London properties are bought by foreign investors. A 20% reduction in the £ means what used to cost A £1m now for these people is effectively £800k. That's £200K they can now spend on another house (or bigger house). That can drive prices higher because they can afford more for same value of Euro/Dollar/etc. The idea that housing prices may collapse is dependent on losing the banking industry and the high paid jobs that would take with it. However a weak £ and not losing the banking industry is only likely to make costs worse not better!

This would however still depend on the demand for actual rental properties, they can still only charge what is attractive to prospective renters. As for banking, I think a lot will depend on what happens with DE bank and the US.

Not racism, bigotry. Attempting to isolate communities and keep others out based on where they are from is a form of bigotry.

Who said anything about attempting, that's simply twisting what I said. A reality is from what I seen, people tend to come across and live in areas of people from the same race/background, if you think otherwise your in a little bubble. London is not a good representation of England, London is its own bubble that really doesn't reflect the rest of the uk.

As for examples of working multiculturalism try Leicester (or any University for that matter). When you see the sort of behaviour that has been going on in the weeks since the vote then can you really blame people for not integrating. Integration has to be both ways, something that a lot of people in the UK fail to understand. Also I'm afraid to burst the bubble but the whole human race is based of multiculturalism. We all migrated from Africa in 2 (perhaps 3 waves); bred with Neanderthals and have mixed over and over. Even down to the stone age there is evidence of trade and multiculturalism from sites at Stonehenge etc. We have never been isolated. The only difference now is that it can happen faster because of better transport. You will never be able to just wall yourself off and avoid people from other nations or cultures. And if you do it infers you think less of these cultures and is effectively bigotry and can lead to things like the Apartheid.

No bubbles burst I'm afraid, the human race is based on war and assimilating other cultures. Isn't the university of Leicester the one that ones to ban god save the queen? Isn't that excluding English culture? Isn't that bigoted? I could go into other cultures and how they speak about infidels and act towards homosexuals, I don't think that's something we should cover here. I honestly their is a massive difference between taking a holiday to a country and learning about another way of life and that culture setting up camp next door and ignoring your own culture because it feels it's own is better than yours and refusing to integrate. Maybe it's just me? If someone comes round my house and disrespects my rules I tend to take offence to that.

 itsonlyme wrote:
As I don't really know how this effects the relative costs, do it make more locally produced more attractive when compared to imported? hard to say without knowing a proper comparison. I think we can expect an increase in prices in all foods now, like I previous said, i am hoping that this can be offset by a reduction in rental costs.

Why would there be reduction in rental costs? Currency shouldn't have anything to do with that.

Lucky you if that happens though. When currency of Finland tanked food prices(and well pretty much everything) but rental costs didn't.

No bubbles burst I'm afraid, the human race is based on war and assimilating other cultures. Isn't the university of Leicester the one that ones to ban god save the queen? Isn't that excluding English culture? Isn't that bigoted? I could go into other cultures and how they speak about infidels and act towards homosexuals, I don't think that's something we should cover here. I honestly their is a massive difference between taking a holiday to a country and learning about another way of life and that culture setting up camp next door and ignoring your own culture because it feels it's own is better than yours and refusing to integrate. Maybe it's just me? If someone comes round my house and disrespects my rules I tend to take offence to that.

Human race might be based on war but that doesn't mean it has to be like that(indeed since nothing is permanent that trait is temporal as well).

Change is hard and it's never going to be easy but look at USA. That country was BUILT by different people from many countries merging into one.

And blame on lack of integration is on both sides. It's hard to integrate unless BOTH want to integrate but at the moment there's lack of interest on both sides. There's stupid stuff like for example in Finland refugee seekers not being even allowed to work for MONTHS. That's just stupid on so many levels. We get whole lot of people of which many would be happy to work and many which even have high educations who then have to sit doing nothing. That's not particularly good as boredom is good way to get people into trouble(whether refugee or local) and work meanwhile is very efficient way to integrate people in.

And it's not like "can't work before application is handled" since you can work just fine while process is going on. You just have to wait 6 months before you can do...

They would integrate lot better if countries would want to integrate them rather than think different is worse.

Like it or not cultural spread is inevitable. You can be like Don Quixote and suffer more or admit the inevitable and ensure it happens with as effciently as possible.

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I'd just like to make a few points about the 100 year experiment of the Royal Air Force, I do know one or two things about it.
There are several reasons why the armed forces maintain their separated structure, but the primary one, and it's very important, is specialisation.
Simply put, the roles of each service are very specific and require dedicated professionals. The RAF particularly so when compared to its sister services. It requires a huge amount of training to fly, maintain and support even one squadron and the RAF has been on continuous operations for decades. More so than the Navy in fact. Especially as the RAF is frequently the first asset used in any conflict we're involved in.
It is also the primary means of defence of the UK and our overseas interests. Russian Nuclear capable Bear aircraft frequently probe our airspace,and attempt to penetrate it, alongside their naval counterparts. Typhoon aircraft are our first line of defence, and they cover the UK, and the Falklands 24 hours a day.
If the RAF was rolled into a UK defence force it would swiftly disintegrate into nothing as the other services would simply not devote the resources to it to maintain basic operational capacity.
The Fleet air arm, and the army air corps are small, often overlooked appendages to their parent service, and could not fulfill the roles that the RAF currently perform, even with the RAF's current assets at their disposal. O
All you would effectively do is rebrand the RAF, not disband it, but then it is likely to become an even more expensive arm than it currently is as Generals and Admirals who's focus on Destroyers and Tanks, would genuinely have no idea how to co-ordinate and effectively project Air-Power.
TBH, people occasionally pop up and say we'd be better off "saving" money by folding the RAF up. They usually have only the tiniest idea of what actually involved in modern force projection and defence, and think the the RAF is basically a bunch of old boys gadding about in Spitfires.
I'm afraid that's simply not true, the RAF will continue as a separate service almost certainly indefinitely. Unless all three services are collapsed and rolled into one Defence force. At which point you may as well not even bother pretending to be able to defend yourself and your assets, and start being very, very diplomatic to everyone.

The crux of your argument appears to be that you think Generals and Admirals will all be incompetent if placed in charge of substantial aerial assets. It's an interesting mission statement and purpose for the existence of the RAF. 'We stop your other military commanders being dumb'.

Well, tbh I was trying to make the point that the reason the RAF came into existence at all, and the reason we have separate arms of the armed forces is because the 3 methodologies require different skills and mindsets.
It helps if you have an understanding of how the armed forces operate. The commissioned ranks are streamed from early on, and promotion is generally based on aptitude, to a point. After a while though, it is very hard for an officer in the RAF who is not a pilot to achieve significant rank who is not a pilot, or at least aircrew. It's similar in the Navy, but with Destroyer Captains, and in the Army as infantry officers. This is likely to be simply because there are more of those kinds of officers.
Now, fast jet pilots are highly intelligent, courageous, determined and resourceful individuals, willing to take calculated risks, however, most couldnt manage a small chip shop. Similarly, their counterparts are most likely excellent professionals in their fields, but are highly focused to look at warfare and the application of force in very different ways. Simply bunging a colonel in charge of an RAF Fast jet station, or in charge of a destroyer is likely to end badly. It follows that scaling up to the most senior levels would have the same effect, a poorly run, inefficient and directionless asset, that would drop in performance, before being binned in favour of something more in line with the mindset in charge.

Blending the armed forces together again would be the equivalent of persuading the education secretary to bin GCSE Maths, English and Science and combining them into one General studies GCSE. It'd just about do, it might be cheaper but the overall result would be pretty gak.

 itsonlyme wrote:

I think it's far to early to say given its only been a few months, this whole part of post is nothing but speculation and given how short a period its been its very hard to say what the long term is going to be, I like to look on the more optimistic side, we should however have a plan for worse.

It's not speculation to highlight the risks of too high or low £ to the economy. Both can have negative implications and that is borne out by many examples globally (such as the difficulties Japan has with a very strong currency). It's not about being optimistic or pessimistic about the future. It's understanding the drivers that can impact on the economy and balancing them to ensure that no one area falls over. It's the Brexiter's that are highlighting the boost in tourism numbers (if ignoring the drop in expenditure) over a couple of months that you should be pointing this message at; they are the ones using it as an example of it will (probably) be OK etc.

 itsonlyme wrote:
As I don't really know how this effects the relative costs, do it make more locally produced more attractive when compared to imported? hard to say without knowing a proper comparison. I think we can expect an increase in prices in all foods now, like I previous said, i am hoping that this can be offset by a reduction in rental costs.

OK, here's a basic example, note the numbers aren't real but simplified to make the example easier to follow.

Suppose a Bread Maker before Brexit sold a loaf for £1 to the domestic market or $2 at the current exchange rate to the foreign market. After Brexit the £ crashed to £1 to $1. Now the foreign market still has the same income as does the UK market. The foreign company can now buy one loaf of bread for $1 but their competitors are doing the same because the bread is much cheaper. That drives demand. To compensate the foreign company offers the bread maker $1.5 for a loaf of bread. The foreign company is still better off by $0.5 compared to before the crash. The baker is better off because there is someone willing to pay more for the bread. However consider the UK consumer. They walk in and want to buy the loaf of bread at £1, but why should the bread maker sell it for £1 when there is a foreign company he can get £1.5 from. The UK consumer hence has no choice but to buy the bread at £1.5. They have had no pay rise to compensate and the cost increase is outside their control. It's simple supply and demand.

I also don't see why you think rental costs will go down? If food and other products increase the person renting the property will want to maintain their lifestyle. To do this they will increase the rental costs to compensate to balance their income.

 itsonlyme wrote:
This would however still depend on the demand for actual rental properties, they can still only charge what is attractive to prospective renters.

People do not buy properties in central London to rent. They are bought as investments on the assumption they will gain value in the future. The rental income is nice sprinkles on the top to cover costs. But the vast majority of money from central London property market comes from buying, waiting and selling after the value has increased.

Who said anything about attempting, that's simply twisting what I said. A reality is from what I seen, people tend to come across and live in areas of people from the same race/background, if you think otherwise your in a little bubble. London is not a good representation of England, London is its own bubble that really doesn't reflect the rest of the uk.

You commented on a "failed experiment that was multiculturalism". Attempting the opposite is isolated communities (which can include whole countries) that protect their own interests and fears (possibly hates) anyone that isn't from their side of the wall. That breeds bigotry and intolerance.

No bubbles burst I'm afraid, the human race is based on war and assimilating other cultures. Isn't the university of Leicester the one that ones to ban god save the queen? Isn't that excluding English culture? Isn't that bigoted? I could go into other cultures and how they speak about infidels and act towards homosexuals, I don't think that's something we should cover here. I honestly their is a massive difference between taking a holiday to a country and learning about another way of life and that culture setting up camp next door and ignoring your own culture because it feels it's own is better than yours and refusing to integrate. Maybe it's just me? If someone comes round my house and disrespects my rules I tend to take offence to that.

Not all the human race devolves to fighting and assimilating everything. There are many better people else we wouldn't have got this far. You only have to look at the Scientific community to understand that working together can achieve greater things than isolated and fearful small groups of people (CERN, Mars Space Missions and so on). No it wasn't Leicester University - a quick google shows it was a Student Rep at one of the London colleges. However one person does not mean everyone thinks that way and should be condemned as such. I have plenty of friends that come from different backgrounds/races/ethnicities and I happily integrate in their lives and customs and they happily integrate into mine. No culture is stagnant and they all change over time incorporating bits and pieces from others as time goes by. Maybe you should spend some time integrating with different groups of people in your own country first before you take the "I'll view it from the tour bus approach"; it might expand the horizons a bit - but it does require you to take action and get involved.

 r_squared wrote:

Well, tbh I was trying to make the point that the reason the RAF came into existence at all, and the reason we have separate arms of the armed forces is because the 3 methodologies require different skills and mindsets.
It helps if you have an understanding of how the armed forces operate. The commissioned ranks are streamed from early on, and promotion is generally based on aptitude, to a point. After a while though, it is very hard for an officer in the RAF who is not a pilot to achieve significant rank who is not a pilot, or at least aircrew. It's similar in the Navy, but with Destroyer Captains, and in the Army as infantry officers. This is likely to be simply because there are more of those kinds of officers.
Now, fast jet pilots are highly intelligent, courageous, determined and resourceful individuals, willing to take calculated risks, however, most couldnt manage a small chip shop. Similarly, their counterparts are most likely excellent professionals in their fields, but are highly focused to look at warfare and the application of force in very different ways. Simply bunging a colonel in charge of an RAF Fast jet station, or in charge of a destroyer is likely to end badly. It follows that scaling up to the most senior levels would have the same effect, a poorly run, inefficient and directionless asset, that would drop in performance, before being binned in favour of something more in line with the mindset in charge.

Blending the armed forces together again would be the equivalent of persuading the education secretary to bin GCSE Maths, English and Science and combining them into one General studies GCSE. It'd just about do, it might be cheaper but the overall result would be pretty gak.

I grasp your point, and definitely think there's something to it, although I'd venture that a little bit more development to it illustrates both why it is a valid concern, but at the same time why it could be overcome.

There have been multiple cases whereby putting a commander not entirely familiar with another branch of the service in combined operations hasn't worked out. Bluff Cove in the Falklands would be a good recent example, where the army officer was desperate to disembark, but the Navy (for various reasons, some good, some bad) wasn't so keen on it. I remember reading another case where a RN officer got quite hacked off because he wanted a Harrier to lift off in a crosswind or somesuch, and was going to write the pilot up on insubordination until he was assured by several people what he was asking was physically impossible.

The main reasons for these sorts of disasters is usually a lack of familiarity with the equipment and strategies used. If you haven't been schooled on how and why an infantry platoon deploys, a warship takes evasive action, or an aircraft's tolerances, you're unable to command them effectively. Because we school all three branches separately, and inter-service rivalry and snobbery is rife, awareness as to how the other parts of the military machine function is not great.

So! I agree with you that this is an issue. Is it an unsolvable one? I think not.

We don't have a separate service for tanks, yet tanks are fielded effectively by the Army. The Fleet Air Arm also flies planes (and well), yet they're controlled by the RN. Historically speaking, the RFC was originally split between the two senior services, and ocean mining was actually handled by the Army, amongst various other examples.

The point I'm making is that any strategy and equipment can be utilised effectively by any service, but that is contingent upon suitable familiarity and education with the necessary strategy/tactics/equipment. There is a limit to what any one type of officer can be familiar with, and were there sufficient alternative roles which the air-force currently undertook, I would be in favour of maintaining the current force structure. Were we still maintaining an aerial nuclear arsenal, a large spy plane program, and so forth, it would be be necessary.

As of the moment however, the actions of the air force these days are primarily limited to the occasional (and extremely limited) aerial bombardment of a previously identified target, monitoring British airspace to launch escorts as appropriate, drone development, and aerial reconnaissance. And these duties, I believe, could be performed equally well split between the two senior services with large efficiency savings, and improvements in all around combined operations (due to that greater familiarity, simplified command structure, etc).

There would have to be a radical overhaul of training for this to occur though, and it would take a few generations to become effective.

I can assure you that the RAF is involved in far more than the limited range of activities you describe.
I also doubt very much that any savings could be achieved by extending the FAA and the AAC to take on the full range of responsibilities. The roles would still be there, however all would find themselves under the command of personnel who's tactical focus is elsewhere.
I have worked alongside Air force, Army, Naval and Marine personnel from the UK and from many other nations, I can assure you that their outlooks and methodologies are very different, necessarily so. All are able to work alongside each other very well, however, all are very different.
An Air arm of the army would not be air power focused, it would be ground support focused. That is an essential part of what the RAF does, but by no means the be all and end all. The Navy regard air power as a fringe benefit, particularly as we haven't actually had an effective FAA for a number of years.
The RAF is a very valid, professional force, and will be around for quite a few years to come. In fact, considering recent developments, it's quite likely that air defence of our assets will become increasingly more likely and the RAF will likely be needed repeatedly yet again for the forsee able future.

Besides, I think this subject is rather more suitable for its own thread, I'm not particularly interested in starting one myself though tbh.

 Whirlwind wrote:
I also don't see why you think rental costs will go down? If food and other products increase the person renting the property will want to maintain their lifestyle. To do this they will increase the rental costs to compensate to balance their income.

That's probably because the obvious thing escapes you, people leaving the country because of Brexit and/or the cost of living combined with hopefully a dramatic decrease in the number of people actually coming to live here, it's the same in many cities across Europe that people simply flock to them making them unaffordable. What your talking about really has little to do with that.

People do not buy properties in central London to rent. They are bought as investments on the assumption they will gain value in the future. The rental income is nice sprinkles on the top to cover costs. But the vast majority of money from central London property market comes from buying, waiting and selling after the value has increased.

The value of property can only go so high before it crashes, combine this with the uncertainty of Brexit and we might well see people actually selling those properties so the demand goes down and people can actually afford to buy. The situation we have in the housing market is terrible with so many people only being able to afford to rent a room.

You commented on a "failed experiment that was multiculturalism". Attempting the opposite is isolated communities (which can include whole countries) that protect their own interests and fears (possibly hates) anyone that isn't from their side of the wall. That breeds bigotry and intolerance.

Now we are drifting off into the left nonsense. If you think the EU multiculturalism experiment was a success, enlighten me. You know what I see, housing prices through the roof, areas that segregate themselves, laughable wages and country dragged into a global government that make bad decision after bad decision, something that seems to be heading the way 1984. We have terrorists attacks fuelling racing hatred and a media that plays boths sides against another. We have people who feel its acceptable to run round labelling anyone who doesn't agree with the globalist dream bigoted, racist, xenophobic at every corner. The hilarious thing about most of those who go on bigotry is they are just as guilty of it as those they accuse of it!

 itsonlyme wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

People do not buy properties in central London to rent. They are bought as investments on the assumption they will gain value in the future. The rental income is nice sprinkles on the top to cover costs. But the vast majority of money from central London property market comes from buying, waiting and selling after the value has increased.

The value of property can only go so high before it crashes, combine this with the uncertainty of Brexit and we might well see people actually selling those properties so the demand goes down and people can actually afford to buy. The situation we have in the housing market is terrible with so many people only being able to afford to rent a room.

This article might be of interest to you...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/huge-spike-in-chinese-property-investors-interest-in-the-uk-post/

Prices won't be crashing anytime soon, at least in London. I watched an interesting documentary about a year ago which investigated the reasons for London's hyper-inflated property market, and it found that Chinese investment is the engine. In Hong Kong prices are astonishingly high, making London look like a bargain in comparison. There's a long way to go before the HK Chinese tap out, which means more empty developments being built and sold as investments keeping demand, and therefore prices, high.