Finally, a promise by a previous Government has come home to roost. 'Stop the Boats'. As I have written often, statements like these are made by politicians when they know that the promise is unachievable but it looks good at the time, and subsequently when the promise fails there is the excuse that progress is being made ('at pace' is often thrown in because that also looks good), but that the failure was beyond the Government's control and anyway no one should have taken the promise literally.
Sadly not so for Rishi Sunak, as he has now admitted that this promise contributed to the Conservatives losing the last General Election. Anyway, he's a much happier bunny now.
.........
'I am seven months. I celebrate by trying to eat the piece of card emblazoned with my achievement. In fact I try to eat anything that looks appealing, edible or inedible. Luckily I have also attacked solid food with relish, so am consoled with my (duly liquidised) potato and spinach followed by poached pear.'
.........
For some of us, it is difficult to banish unpleasant thoughts about Americans. One of mine is over (though not limited to Republicans) adopting the style of using first name initials.
So, JD Vance, Trump's anointed successor. James David Vance. I like the name James. What's wrong with James Vance? Why JD? Can I put on my best Hillbilly accent? 'JD, pour me another shot of that 'ol Jack Daniels', or whatever Hillbillies say.
Unfair for our JD, who appears occasionally to be a very smart cookie, but I still don't understand it. One thing is certain. It won't be happening with POTUS. We would have to move him from The Apprentice to Ibiza:
'Tonight on the decks: DJ Trump!!'
.........
We have had Shrove Tuesday, Pancake Day. Do you like yours with lemon and sugar, or with more exotic things added? The seven-year old, who thinks out of the box, suggested duck. It was difficult to mount any cogent rejection, other than by citing boring tradition.
.........
For the avoidance of doubt, what follows is not legal advice. And apologies for the mini-essay.
Commonhold. It's the talk of dinner party conversation. It is also not being explained that well. A form of ownership (we lawyers like to say 'tenure'), it's been around for a while to deal with ownership of properties that are separated laterally, for which the predominant tenure historically has been leasehold, with its hated ground rent and the potential for abuse of the service charge provisions that are needed to cover the maintenance of common parts.
Commonhold has been touted as doing away with those woes. Well, it does it for ground rent, and it should do it for the worst abuses of service charges (note the qualified wording, and below). Also the length of the commonhold ownership is time unlimited, against the limit for leasehold.
Now let us dig in and dispel the myth that commonhold is some magical novelty that is vastly superior to a leasehold structure.
We need to talk virtual freehold. Here the freehold of our classic apartment block is owned by a company, and each apartment owner has an equal share in the company. Bye bye the reviled so-called ground landlord. Bye bye ground rent as we know it.
And (general point) about leases, within reason they can be any length you want - say up to 999 years. Traditionally the minimum term for a new lease was 99 years, but over the years lease terms have increased - my one currently has slightly over 240 years left on it. Yes, there is something about a lease term being unacceptable to a lender once it drops below around 80 years (for the lawyers and valuers, the risk of moving towards an asset of diminishing value), but there are enshrined statutory rights to extend the term to an acceptable length in return for an appropriate payment refecting the value of the extension (again statutorily controlled so no risk of private sector gluttony). Oh, and also although there will be a ground rent it can be for a minimal annual amount, and can be fixed for the whole term.
But bringing in commonhold is a reform de nos jours, and as ever looks good for a Government where voices in favour will vastly outnumber voices against. So let's examine one last aspect that will not change between leasehold and commonhold.
In either leasehold or commonhold the apartment owner (as in leaseholder for the current regime) owns their apartment. Obvs yes, but the extent of ownership is essentially the internal envelope of the apartment. Which leaves everything else that is within the block, from structure to internal common parts.
Who is going to look after this, again covering everything from repairing a cracked wall to cleaning corridor carpets? In leasehold world that is not a virtual freehold, we have the ground landlord, who will recover its costs under a service charge (and so the well-aired complaints of excessive charges). Of course there will be reputable ground landlords, although I nearly choked on my Frosties when someone from their industry association submitted that the ground landlord had a 'steward' role. Come on chaps, this isn't altruistic trusteeship, you are essentially in it for the value of the ground rents.
Great news then that under commonhold we have no ground landlord....but just the small matter of managing the block and recovering the costs proportionally from the commonholders. The good news is that the day to day management can be outsourced to a management company. It will have contractual responsibilities to perform, and ultimately can be sacked if it fails. But there is still the need for the equivalent of a leaseholders association to represent the collective interests of the commonholders. Millennials and later, if lucky enough to be owners, will have other priorities in their lives above sitting on a ghastly committee...and the typical committee for the next ten years at least will need the gratis services and expertise of vilified Boomers who have time on their hands.
As ever, devil in the detail. But that is for House of Commons committee world, not for performative Secretary of State announcements.
.........
What's in it for me? A theme I have frequently written about. In the US, MAGA is wonderful...except where it results in your losing your job as a Federal Government employee.
.........
Overheard on the Heath: 'Eleven is too many; they should only be put through nine'. Amazing how one immediately realises that the subject is GCSEs. To live around here one has to be in tune with the zeitgeist.
.........
A journo writes on the iniquity of food on the go (especially the hot variety) when 'on the go' means on public transport.
I thought of a recent McDonalds advert, where a chap munches his triple burger and crunchy fries on a train. There is no one else in the carriage - how lifelike? - though no one else would want to be within ten metres unless that were stuffing down a competitor concoction.
My current beef in a life of frequently travelling on London Overgroumd is the bloke talking loudly on his phone.. He has buds in and microphone dangling. He is not bothered about anyone else as he cannot hear them outside his own bubble. In a recent incident the chap started on the platform. Hearing him, I moved further down to board. But given continuous carriage his voice remained and I felt that he was pursuing me up the train.
Finally he got off. Quiet. He had not had a clue.
.........
One for the lawyers. if you are a partner of US firm Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, DEI now seems to mean DIE.
.........
A search for ice cream. The seven-year old emerges from school with usual appetite. Ice cream is discussed. He is keen on a venture to the centre of Hampstead to enjoy an offering from the most expensive ice cream parlour in London. Not practicable, unless you enjoy sitting in gummed up traffic. A stop off at Roni's in Belsize Village is offered...and rejected as product is considered not up to standard (I have no view).
Maybe something in Belsize Park? We park in a side road, and start to tour Haverstock Hill. Nothing doing.
We trudge back up towards the car. We pass The Everyman Cinema. And then there is a triumph of lateral thinking. Doesn't it do ice cream? Er, one associates cinema eating with watching a film. But desperate measures.
The staff are a delight. The core product is good if not outstanding (so I was advised), but the artificial ingredient top-ups are pronounced as being of highest quality.
Happy seven-year old, and the nine-year old swung along with dignified air.
Result - we now have the second-best ice cream venue in this part of town. These things in life give pleasure.
.........
The author is a writer, speaker, historian, occasional tour guide, and former Managing Partner of a City law firm.