Cost of Living

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

Diesel £1.71 in Tesco Milbrook, £1.75/6 most places. 

£1.67 at Morrisons in Cleveleys, but not much use to most on here.

[Weston Super Saint]

Diesel is £1.70 @ Morrisons in Weston S Mare.

[whelk]

Diesel v unleaded gap has widened hugely

£1.36 unleaded at Costco if you can be arsed to queue

[AlexLaw76]

disgraceful prices.  Solidarity with Kiyv and all that

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

disgraceful prices.  Solidarity with Kiyv and all that

Wholesale price of unleaded is a few pence over £1, diesel at just over £1.20.

Should we not be supporting Ukraine ? ( Stupid question really, we all know your position ).

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Wholesale price of unleaded is a few pence over £1, diesel at just over £1.20.

Should we not be supporting Ukraine ? ( Stupid question really, we all know your position ).

Yes we should.  But then not moan about the cost of living as we all knew it would get expensive with the geo-political situation in play

[whelk]

26 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

disgraceful prices.  Solidarity with Kiyv and all that

Collaborator cunt

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Yes we should.  But then not moan about the cost of living as we all knew it would get expensive with the geo-political situation in play

I imagine the current complaint is more to do with the 'rocket and feather' tactics of those selling fuel - not that that's a new tactic, just one that's being highlighted more due to the inordinate profits the energy companies are currently making.

[Turkish]

Shell reporting $9.6b profit for first quarter of 2023. The gravy train continues 

[The Kraken]

5 hours ago, Turkish said:

Shell reporting $9.6b profit for first quarter of 2023. The gravy train continues 

Its not right to tax these companies a bit more though. No no no. The great unwashed can just get on with it, long live those lovely dividends (and kickbacks…..).

 

Edited 4 May, 2023 by The Kraken

[whelk]

At least not as bad as Argentina

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-to-have-highest-inflation-in-developed-world-this-year-oecd-warns-12897660

[whelk]

Keep seeing headlines about mortgage help for those struggling as if it is an option. Horrible position to be in but you overstretched to buy a bigger asset than you could afford. Simple and not a case for government help FFS.

Can’t believe what people expect Govt to do. Back in the 90s , guess what? You got house repossessed and made no money as the house value plummeted. It is what happens when you play the market and need to accept if you thought interest rates would stay at 1% and borrowed against it then bigger fool you. Obviously Truss exacerbated the situation.

[ecuk268]

51 minutes ago, whelk said:

Keep seeing headlines about mortgage help for those struggling as if it is an option. Horrible position to be in but you overstretched to buy a bigger asset than you could afford. Simple and not a case for government help FFS.

Can’t believe what people expect Govt to do. Back in the 90s , guess what? You got house repossessed and made no money as the house value plummeted. It is what happens when you play the market and need to accept if you thought interest rates would stay at 1% and borrowed against it then bigger fool you. Obviously Truss exacerbated the situation.

These kids today don't know they're alive.

We paid 15% soon after getting our first mortgage in the mid 70's.

The difference from today is that our first house, a new semi, cost about 4.5 times my salary which these days would only be about £100k - £150k, the price of a small flat.

[Turkish]

Poor old Shell, last quarter profits were down to only $3.9b last quarter. 

[skintsaint]

19 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Poor old Shell, last quarter profits were down to only $3.9b last quarter. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66315117

[Gloucester Saint]

That British Gas article sums up how the late 1980s privatisation of utilities has failed on every level. Doubt if Starmer has either the cojones or funds to re-nationalise it, but it’s what needs to happen. Even half of Conservative voters when polled are saying it. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nearly-half-tory-supporters-want-27856320

Edited 27 July, 2023 by Gloucester Saint

[sadoldgit]

The situation re house prices is very different now to back in the high interest rates of the 1980’s and I think there is a huge difference between playing the market and trying to get your foot on the housing market. The ratio between earnings and house prices has grown enormously during this period and the situation has been exacerbated by the shortage of rental properties. People are not playing the market nowadays, they are just trying to get a roof over their heads.

The interests rates are incidental. People will look to get a mortgage be they low or high because very few have the resources to buy a house without borrowing.

Yes, there is always a risk when you take out a mortgage (at any interest rate) and I am not suggesting that the government should bail people out, but there is clearly a huge issue now with the lack of affordable housing and the shortage of rentable properties, and that is where the government can step in and make a difference.

[whelk]

Don’t worry lads Centrica are still surviving. Nice tidy 6 month profit off our energy bills. Still some pricks that don’t support a windfall tax.

Edited 27 July, 2023 by whelk

[Fan The Flames]

And Unilever sales droppedby 2.5% but pre-tax profits rose by 20%.

[egg]

22 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The situation re house prices is very different now to back in the high interest rates of the 1980’s and I think there is a huge difference between playing the market and trying to get your foot on the housing market. The ratio between earnings and house prices has grown enormously during this period and the situation has been exacerbated by the shortage of rental properties. People are not playing the market nowadays, they are just trying to get a roof over their heads.

The interests rates are incidental. People will look to get a mortgage be they low or high because very few have the resources to buy a house without borrowing.

Yes, there is always a risk when you take out a mortgage (at any interest rate) and I am not suggesting that the government should bail people out, but there is clearly a huge issue now with the lack of affordable housing and the shortage of rentable properties, and that is where the government can step in and make a difference.

I agree. The issue is what the government can realistically do to solve the housing shortage. A massive social housing build would never be done a Tory government, and wouldn't be affordable to a labour government. Subsiding rent is not affordable. Landlords own a big chunk of housing stock and will (and do) crank up rents as interest rates rise to maintain profit. How do you say that the government "can step in and make a difference"? 

[revolution saint]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

I agree. The issue is what the government can realistically do to solve the housing shortage. A massive social housing build would never be done a Tory government, and wouldn't be affordable to a labour government. Subsiding rent is not affordable. Landlords own a big chunk of housing stock and will (and do) crank up rents as interest rates rise to maintain profit. How do you say that the government "can step in and make a difference"? 

One thing you could do would be to implement rent control.  You could also limit credit to people who are buying to let - landlords would own their properties outright and would be less subject to interest rate fluctuations.

[egg]

Rent control won't work. We need private landlords. They need profit. In order to maintain profit, rents are increasing. If private landlords sell up (many are), where do rental properties come from? We've created an almighty mess from the right to buy days through to Rishi's giveaways. No easy solution sadly. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

One thing you could do would be to implement rent control.  You could also limit credit to people who are buying to let - landlords would own their properties outright and would be less subject to interest rate fluctuations.

This. Make it much harder to buy to let so as well as having less rent subject to interest rate changes there will be more properties on the market to buy so lowering prices.

[revolution saint]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

Rent control won't work. We need private landlords. They need profit. In order to maintain profit, rents are increasing. If private landlords sell up (many are), where do rental properties come from? We've created an almighty mess from the right to buy days through to Rishi's giveaways. No easy solution sadly. 

Rent control works in the rest of the world, why not here?  Hell, they even have it in parts of the US.  We're an outlier in that regard. 

[egg]

16 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Rent control works in the rest of the world, why not here?  Hell, they even have it in parts of the US.  We're an outlier in that regard. 

It won't work because landlords won't subscribe to it if it means little or no profit. No landlords means no properties to rent. 

[revolution saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It won't work because landlords won't subscribe to it if it means little or no profit. No landlords means no properties to rent. 

Disagree - landlords will get used to it.  If current ones don't like it then others will take their place.  They'll still be making a profit but less of it.  

 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Disagree - landlords will get used to it.  If current ones don't like it then others will take their place.  They'll still be making a profit but less of it.  

 

Landlords are selling up now because profits are squeezed by interest rates and the lack of tax relief on mortgage interest. It'll only get worse if rentbis controlled. We should never have got ourselves into the position we have, but we are where we are. Significantly more social housing at fair rents is what's needed, but it's unaffordable. As things stand, as interest rates increase, so will rents. It's a mess. 

[revolution saint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Landlords are selling up now because profits are squeezed by interest rates and the lack of tax relief on mortgage interest. It'll only get worse if rentbis controlled. We should never have got ourselves into the position we have, but we are where we are. Significantly more social housing at fair rents is what's needed, but it's unaffordable. As things stand, as interest rates increase, so will rents. It's a mess. 

Some landlords will sell up sure but others won't.  

If landlords are selling up then that's actually a good thing - it'll mean that there's more properties on the market and house prices will fall. 

TBH you'd expect landlords to complain as it's not in their interest but it reminds me of the dire warnings from business and the CBI when the national minimum wage was brought it.  You can choose to look at it from the perspective of of vested interests like landlords but I'm more concerned with the people at the other end of the scale.

[egg]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

Some landlords will sell up sure but others won't.  

If landlords are selling up then that's actually a good thing - it'll mean that there's more properties on the market and house prices will fall. 

TBH you'd expect landlords to complain as it's not in their interest but it reminds me of the dire warnings from business and the CBI when the national minimum wage was brought it.  You can choose to look at it from the perspective of of vested interests like landlords but I'm more concerned with the people at the other end of the scale.

But you're not looking at from the other end of the scale. Less landlords means less rental properties which means more demand for a reduced pool of rental housing stock. That increased demand equals higher rents for the renters. Taking landlords out of the game makes things worse for the punters, not better. 

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that we need to reduce prices to enable more people to buy, the majority of people who rent won't be able to reach into buying a property if prices reduce by say 10-15%, there'll still be out of each. The situation is compounded by rising interest rates. 

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Significantly more social housing at fair rents is what's needed, but it's unaffordable. As things stand, as interest rates increase, so will rents. It's a mess. 

We simply need more housing. If we build a lot more housing then the price will fall to affordable levels for everybody, renters and buyers. That will mean more disposable income and less tax funded housing benefit and other rent subsidies. Building housing isnt that expensive, construction is usually only around one third of the current cost. We simply need to break the ridiculous cycle where agricultural land is £12-15k per acre (enough for 10 decent homes with gardens) but its price goes up to £1-2 million if planning permission is granted. Simply shut out the opportunity for speculation. Pay farmers three times their lands value, say £50k per acre and everyone will be happy.       

Edited 28 July, 2023 by buctootim
typo correction

[egg]

Just now, buctootim said:

We simply need more housing. If we build a lot more housing then the price will fall to affordable levels for everybody and you need less tax funded housing benefit and other rent subsidies. Building housing isnt that expensive, we simply need to break the ridiculous cycle where agricultural land is £12-15k per acre (enough for 10 decent homes with gardens) but its price goes up to £1-2 million if palnning permission is granted. Simply shut out the opportunity for speculation. Pay farmers three their lands value, say £50k per acre and everyone will be happy.       

Absolutely we need more housing, but who's gonna build them? It won't be social landlords as they haven't got the cash. It'll only be house builders if there's punters able to borrow to buy at the price they need to make it worthwhile. 

Breaking the cycle on any of this is almost impossible reality. Land owner's will sell at the highest price, not the price needed to make mass development affordable. 

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Absolutely we need more housing, but who's gonna build them? It won't be social landlords as they haven't got the cash. It'll only be house builders if there's punters able to borrow to buy at the price they need to make it worthwhile. 

Breaking the cycle on any of this is almost impossible reality. Land owner's will sell at the highest price, not the price needed to make mass development affordable. 

There are a number of options but the one which seems to make most sense is to have some kind of public interest companies or agencies which buys the building land at fair value and they hold open tenders for construction companies to compete to build the houses at the best price / quality / design etc. As I said above, if you take land specualtion and profiteering out of the equation you can get better housing at half the cost - just like most of Europe.     

[egg]

4 minutes ago, buctootim said:

There are a number of options but the one which seems to make most sense is to have some kind of public interest companies or agencies which buys the building land at fair value and they hold open tenders for construction companies to compete to build the houses at the best price / quality / design etc. As I said above, if you take land specualtion and profiteering out of the equation you can get better housing at half the cost - just like most of Europe.     

That'll take a fundamental shift, and legislation, to make it possible. It needs to start with someone being able to acquire building land at fair cost, and that's something I just can't see happening - it'd need some kind of compulsory purchase arrangement to buy up either agricultural, greenfield, or brownfield sites. It's a notion that'll never become reality - imagine the uproar in middle England if farmers are made to sell up on the cheap so that social housing can be built? There's no government that'd ever do that. 

[revolution saint]

25 minutes ago, egg said:

But you're not looking at from the other end of the scale. Less landlords means less rental properties which means more demand for a reduced pool of rental housing stock. That increased demand equals higher rents for the renters. Taking landlords out of the game makes things worse for the punters, not better. 

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that we need to reduce prices to enable more people to buy, the majority of people who rent won't be able to reach into buying a property if prices reduce by say 10-15%, there'll still be out of each. The situation is compounded by rising interest rates. 

I think if landlords sell up then eventually that filters down to reduce the number of renters.  Those houses will become either occupied by homeowners or they'll be put back out to rent by people prepared to get back less in profit. Also i think you'd be looking at relatively few landlords actually selling up - sure they'll be pissed at not making as much profit but, as I said, businesses were up in arms over the introduction of the minimum wage and none of those dire warnings came to pass .  Anything that reduces the profit side of housing will be better in the long run.

The obvious thing is to build more houses.

[buctootim]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

That'll take a fundamental shift, and legislation, to make it possible. It needs to start with someone being able to acquire building land at fair cost, and that's something I just can't see happening - it'd need some kind of compulsory purchase arrangement to buy up either agricultural, greenfield, or brownfield sites. It's a notion that'll never become reality - imagine the uproar in middle England if farmers are made to sell up on the cheap so that social housing can be built? There's no government that'd ever do that. 

I think its workable.  Its rarely farmers who benefit from granting of planning permission. Construction companies and private equity firms buy up agricultural land at agricultural prices. They add that land to their land banks and set to work on campaigning to make the land a development site. Its often a long term strategy of 10-20 years. It is a highly speculative, inefficient and risky process which drives costs much higher than they need to be, and in turn raises house prices.  

If farmers had the option of selling their land at three times its market value many would snatch your hand off. And if house builders were able to build houses to an agreed spec and price on fixed price land with guaranteed planning permission they'd be happy too. It would also create more opportunities for self builders and small companies who want to build a handful of houses at a time. More choice and an end to cookie cutter generic designs.         

[Lord Duckhunter]

42 minutes ago, egg said:

But you're not looking at from the other end of the scale. Less landlords means less rental properties which means more demand for a reduced pool of rental housing stock. That increased demand equals higher rents for the renters. Taking landlords out of the game makes things worse for the punters, not better. 

 

Correct. Landlords pay an important part of the housing mix, but are always portrayed as the bad guys.

We’re landlords & our tenants couldn’t afford to buy & then maintain the property they live in. It’s too simplistic to equate paying £1,600 rent to a mortgage payment of £1,600, but that’s what everyone does. Of course paying rent is basically paying our mortgage (plus some) but our tenants don’t want to own their own house. Last year we spent thousands on a new roof, other maintenance costs & it was a particularly expensive year. If they owned the house, they wouldn’t have the money. But more importantly they wouldn’t want the hassle. They’re happy to rent, like the flexibility & the fact there’s no unexpected costs. I know there’s shitty landlords about, but we’re decent ones (most are). Believe me, you make more money from happy tenants than pissing them off. If we and thousands like us sold, it wouldn’t reduce the price of houses, it would just make decent ones to rent harder to find and more expensive

Edited 28 July, 2023 by Lord Duckhunter

[egg]

10 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I think if landlords sell up then eventually that filters down to reduce the number of renters.  Those houses will become either occupied by homeowners or they'll be put back out to rent by people prepared to get back less in profit. Also i think you'd be looking at relatively few landlords actually selling up - sure they'll be pissed at not making as much profit but, as I said, businesses were up in arms over the introduction of the minimum wage and none of those dire warnings came to pass .  Anything that reduces the profit side of housing will be better in the long run.

The obvious thing is to build more houses.

Landlords are selling in their droves. Come remortgage time they face much higher rates. The added issue is that lenders need the landlord to demonstrate a certain level of profit to secure a BTL mortgage. As the interest rates have risen, that means that the rent has to a) be higher, but b) be achievable, to get the mortgage. Where the rent hike needed to get the mortgage is just too much, the landlord has to sell. Out there it's happening. The problem equally applies to anyone else wanting to buy on a BTL basis. 

However you cut it, rents have to go up to make the BTL system work, and we won't be getting a viable alternative. 

[revolution saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Landlords are selling in their droves. Come remortgage time they face much higher rates. The added issue is that lenders need the landlord to demonstrate a certain level of profit to secure a BTL mortgage. As the interest rates have risen, that means that the rent has to a) be higher, but b) be achievable, to get the mortgage. Where the rent hike needed to get the mortgage is just too much, the landlord has to sell. Out there it's happening. The problem equally applies to anyone else wanting to buy on a BTL basis. 

However you cut it, rents have to go up to make the BTL system work, and we won't be getting a viable alternative. 

Well, if it is happening then I still think that's good for the market.  The BTL system is part of the problem.  

[egg]

2 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Well, if it is happening then I still think that's good for the market.  The BTL system is part of the problem.  

I do not understand how you think it's good for the rental market to have less houses in the rental pool. It really isn't. 

[buctootim]

Just now, egg said:

I do not understand how you think it's good for the rental market to have less houses in the rental pool. It really isn't. 

Agree you need private landlords. Trouble is in a tight property market where prices are rising BLT cash buyers typically outbid those seeking to buy a first or second home and further drive up prices. In a falling market there is a big BLT rush to sell so the supply of rental properties decreases and rents rise. Yes you need private landlords but the current tax break / dividends structure wiorks against individuals   

[Fan The Flames]

Renters in the private renting sector pay the highest percentage of their income on housing costs. 

The private renting sector is too big and rents are too high. We really need rent controls, but too many MPs are landlords.

[revolution saint]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

I do not understand how you think it's good for the rental market to have less houses in the rental pool. It really isn't. 

I've already explained it but those houses will either become owned by homeowners (which means fewer renters), or they'll remain within the rental pool but with landlords more prepared to accept less in profit and less at the whim of interest rates.  BTL has been a factor in pushing up house prices, making BTL less attractive would mean some fall in house prices.

I find it strange that this has become a discussion not about how the housing market can be fixed, but what can we do whilst still preserving the profit margin for landlords.  If we're not going to build more houses then tackling the BTL market is the one way of improving the housing situation.

Anyway, we're going round in circles so I'm out on this one now.  Crack on the rest of you.

[Fan The Flames]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

I do not understand how you think it's good for the rental market to have less houses in the rental pool. It really isn't. 

I guess RS is talking about the whole housing market, because the houses don't disappear they move tenure from being rented to being owned.

Surely the best scenario is that people own their own homes and those that really can't, rent communally own assets.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I've already explained it but those houses will either become owned by homeowners (which means fewer renters), or they'll remain within the rental pool but with landlords more prepared to accept less in profit and less at the whim of interest rates.  BTL has been a factor in pushing up house prices, making BTL less attractive would mean some fall in house prices.

I find it strange that this has become a discussion not about how the housing market can be fixed, but what can we do whilst still preserving the profit margin for landlords.  If we're not going to build more houses then tackling the BTL market is the one way of improving the housing situation.

Anyway, we're going round in circles so I'm out on this one now.  Crack on the rest of you.

You're missing the point that no landlord can borrow to buy or retain a property on a BTL basis unless they demonstrate to the lender that there's a sufficient profit margin. That's not me advocating big profit. Given that reality, your hope that other BTL landlords will come along and reduce rents simply cannot happen in practice. 

Sure, it'd be great if the renter's who'd like to buy could do so and eliminate the need for so many BTL landlords, but we all know that even if with a fairly chunky drop in house prices, that's just too much of a stretch for many renters. I think (hope) we'll see some rental stock becoming owner occupied, but it won't be in huge numbers. 

[rallyboy]

The bigger blow to the rental market would be the current proposals on energy ratings.

If they were to go ahead as initially planned the UK rental market would all but end as the majority of rental properties can never meet the standard which would mean very few properties available at astronomical prices.

While Sunak seems to be backtracking on all green issues, his mad proposals for the rental market need to be binned. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

I guess RS is talking about the whole housing market, because the houses don't disappear they move tenure from being rented to being owned.

Surely the best scenario is that people own their own homes and those that really can't, rent communally own assets.

Only if there are buyers able to buy them. Many people rent because they can't buy. 

[revolution saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Only if there are buyers able to buy them. Many people rent because they can't buy. 

OK, I'll have one last crack because you're struggling.  I've imposed rent control which is obviously going to make it less attractive for landlords. 

If you're a landlord you might want to sell up but your house isn't worth as much because you can't make so much money renting it out.  What do you do?  You lower your asking price.  Your house then becomes more affordable and the people who buy it will be a combination of existing homeowners, people who were renting or landlords who can  accept they won't be making so much money.  If they're existing homeowners then their previous property could be bought by people currently renting (or somewhere down the chain) - that's reducing the number of people who are only renting because they can't afford to buy.  So what I've done is make the housing market more affordable.  There's still a market for renters but it's smaller because there will be less of them. 

Now there's various ways you can impose rent control, you can have rent stabilisation, you can link rent to CPI, you can link it to council tax bands - all of it will result in BTL becoming less attractive and reducing the price of houses.  You can also impose things that make it harder to obtain BTL credit.  Whatever, as long as the end result is reducing the price of the housing market.  Yes, landlords won't like it and, yes, some people will be in negative equity, that's the downside.

Now obviously the better way is to simply build more houses. 

Anyway, honestly, it you don't understand the principle by now then you never will.

[egg]

1 minute ago, revolution saint said:

OK, I'll have one last crack because you're struggling.  I've imposed rent control which is obviously going to make it less attractive for landlords. 

If you're a landlord you might want to sell up but your house isn't worth as much because you can't make so much money renting it out.  What do you do?  You lower your asking price.  Your house then becomes more affordable and the people who buy it will be a combination of existing homeowners, people who were renting or landlords who can  accept they won't be making so much money.  If they're existing homeowners then their previous property could be bought by people currently renting (or somewhere down the chain) - that's reducing the number of people who are only renting because they can't afford to buy.  So what I've done is make the housing market more affordable.  There's still a market for renters but it's smaller because there will be less of them. 

Now there's various ways you can impose rent control, you can have rent stabilisation, you can link rent to CPI, you can link it to council tax bands - all of it will result in BTL becoming less attractive and reducing the price of houses.  You can also impose things that make it harder to obtain BTL credit.  Whatever, as long as the end result is reducing the price of the housing market.  Yes, landlords won't like it and, yes, some people will be in negative equity, that's the downside.

Now obviously the better way is to simply build more houses. 

Anyway, honestly, it you don't understand the principle by now then you never will.

Thanks for the patronising explanation of your unrealistic concept. It's nuts. It won't happen. 

I was hoping for a discussion about realistic options, but "you're struggling" with that so I'll leave it. 

Have a lovely evening. 

[revolution saint]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Thanks for the patronising explanation of your unrealistic concept. It's nuts. It won't happen. 

I was hoping for a discussion about realistic options, but "you're struggling" with that so I'll leave it. 

Have a lovely evening. 

Why is it nuts?  Rent control is used throughout the world and was here up till 1980.  I appreciate you may not like the solution and you don't have to.  It's one possible solution but I'm not sure you really want one.  Anyway, if it's patronising then apologies for that.

[egg]

Just now, revolution saint said:

Why is it nuts?  Rent control is used throughout the world and was here up till 1980.  I appreciate you may not like the solution and you don't have to.  It's one possible solution but I'm not sure you really want one.  Anyway, if it's patronising then apologies for that.

The drop in house prices would need to be huge to bring prices to a level where there can be mass house purchases. The negative equity caused by it will likely be ultra recessionary, and we'll probably have another banking crisis. No government would even contemplate that, let alone action it. 

I want a solution, but I don't see one as realistically achievable. 

We're poles apart on this, so I'll say no more.