[The Weeping Angel]

This sounds promising. Then again Warren always makes things sound positive.

I haven't checked Clive Lewis for a while. Doubtless, he's praising the government for collecting unpaid tax, seeing he was exercised by this before?

He does, although it's a useful antidote to the likes of Stephen Bush.

[The Weeping Angel]

This was announced yesterday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0 ... 3gS8eVJrAQ

P

lans for a major reform of the house-buying system, which aim to cut costs, reduce delays and halve failed sales, have been unveiled by the government.

Under the new proposals, sellers and estate agents will be legally required to provide key information about a property up front, and the option of binding contracts could stop either party walking away late in the process.

The government estimates the overhaul could save first-time buyers an average of £710 and shave four weeks off the time it takes to complete a typical property deal.

But sellers at the end of a chain may face increased initial costs of £310 and, while broadly welcoming the move, housing experts say more detail is needed.

Previous attempts at mandating sellers to offer key information - through home information packs - were scrapped owing to complaints that it discouraged or delayed sellers in putting homes on the market.

The broader issue of housing affordability remains a block for many potential property purchasers, especially first-time buyers.

And many home buyers would not benefit from the estimated savings, as the calculations include the average cost of failed transactions that some might not experience.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Home Information Packs, that's a blast from the past. These were elevated to some sort of "Labour have lost the plot' issue, which Cameron and Clegg immediately scrapped because "red tape". Amazingly, selling houses is still really cumbersome and expensive.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Prime Minister said the Blair-era target for 50 per cent of young people to go to university is not 'right for our times'. In his speech at Labour Party conference on Tuesday (September 30), he announced it would be scrapped.

Luckily there never was such a target. It wasn't "university", it was higher education. It was people under 30, so it included people who left school at 16 and 18. This would include people with full time jobs studying part time, often vocational stuff, and people who had maybe not come from educated backgrounds, but who'd realized they could go further with education than they had. Both of these, you'd think were a good thing, to which not even Farage and Kemi could object.

But I suppose that the myth has got so deeply entrenched, you might as well get some political theatre out of scrapping it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

David Lammy rules out charging workers for employment tribunal claims
Justice secretary says right to challenge unfair work behaviour is core to Labour work plan after union backlash

Another Guardian Exclusive that never happened then. Still, they got some "Labour are awful" mileage out of it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Not sure I agree with this. Yeah, it would be good to have more Indian students in the UK, but this isn't offshoring. The cost difference between studying at a UK university in the UK and in India is likely to be pretty large, in terms of board and lodging if nothing else. So we're going to be talking about a lot of people taking courses with a UK university who might not be able to afford to do that in the UK. It's still the UK university earning considerable sums from exporting courses, so very positive if it happens.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think it may also be a bit premature to take Starmer's position on visas as set in stone. India really likes visas, and may be happy to trade more market access if it has to work harder to get them. Perhaps this is my schoolboy idea of what diplomacy is, but Starmer showed in the EU negotiations that he's prepared to trade market access for more visas than he said at the start. I think that if the positions were reversed, lots of the people criticizing Starmer (not Jon Portes) would be telling us how stupid we were, the other side always plays 4D chess, don't you know how negotiations work etc??

[mattomac]

Many Universities already have campuses abroad

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's terrible that pubs are closing, say lots of people. How about we change the law so they can stay open later, if they want?

Apparently that's unthinkable, unless you're a vested interest in the hospitality industry. How do other countries manage?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... e-extended

However, critics are warning that the planned liberalisation of the alcohol licensing regime in England and Wales will erode local councils’ right to decide on opening hours, hand the drink industry unprecedented power and limit the ability of people affected by late night openings to object.

The plans amount to “a charter for chaos” that will lead to more drink-related aggression, greater violence against women and even more deaths from alcohol, health experts claim. They would “allow an open all hours free-for-all in the availability of alcohol”, said Dr Katherine Severi, the chief executive of the Institute of Alcohol Studies thinktank.

Every town used to have more than one pub where there'd be regular fights outside, despite closing at 11pm. These have become much less common, despite pubs being open longer, because we've become much less tolerant of such places. Does this all come back if the pubs can stay open later?

And how much of this very unhealthy drinking actually happens in pubs nowadays anyway?