You are in an XVI century Historical building. Corral del Conde is a monument and for your own knowledge we invite you to follow some basic behaviour rules:

1. Parties are strictly prohibited, and disturbing the neighbours by loud music or noise.

2. Children or adults not allowed to shout and running inside the monument.

3. This is a complex of apartments to feel in calm and relax. Some of them are for tourists and the community need to be respected.

4. It is prohibited to drag wheels of the suitcases in the pavement, they do noise that muddies the peace of the lodged persons.

5. For your own security, be sure when going out or entering the building, to close the two doors and double check they are perfectly closed.

6. It is not allowed to close strongly the door, this is an old monument door and need to be treated with special care.

7. Trash bags need to be deposit in Plaza Padre Jerónimo de Córdoba few meters on the right of Corral del Conde. Who does not follow this rule will be denounced.

8. It is prohibited to throw cigarette stubs and papers.

9. Pets cannot be free.

10.It is absolutely forbidden to take a bath in the fountain, it has dangerous chemical products.

11.It is not permitted to lay on the sun in public areas. We have to respect the other clients, this is not a resort.

We are confident that they will discharge their responsibilities. Any abuses will be reported

Confirmation that the Andrews government is considering limiting Victorian landlords’ ability to lift rents to just once every two years and separately putting a cap on rent increases as part of a housing package, is the last straw.

“I’ve lived through and paid high interest rates before, and it was tough,” Mr Lorusso told The Australian Financial Review. “But interest rates don’t stay at that level forever. Interest rates are also tax-deductible.

“But these policies targeting property investors are not negotiable. And you really don’t have an option except to comply or sell up.”

Mr Lorusso says he is planning sell one or up to all four of his investment properties because they have become too difficult to hold on to. “I’m also advising all my investor clients to consider selling,” he said.

The rental limit proposals revealed at the weekend are in addition to a recently imposed land tax on investment properties, and restrictions on evictions without approved reasons, such as selling the property, doing major renovations or moving in a family member.

Tim Lawless, research director at property data company CoreLogic, said the latest proposals add to the earlier measures and discourage housing investors in Victoria.

“We could see more investors looking to sell their rental property, while others considering an investment in Victoria’s housing market may choose to invest their dollars elsewhere,” he said.

Investors, hit along with other borrowers by a dozen interest rate rises since May 2022, are already selling up in large numbers. The exodus gathered pace in June, when the share of ex-rental listings in Melbourne jumped to a two-year high of 36.2 per cent, CoreLogic data shows.

“Further uncertainty could act to erode investor confidence leading to a larger portion of investors looking to sell,” Mr Lawless said.

“So it’s hard to see a policy like this improving rental stress. We still have unprecedented levels of demand flowing in from overseas, including foreign students.

Additionally, policies like this that have the potential to disincentivise investors could make it harder to deliver new ‘build to sell’ stock to the market as developers find it hard to achieve pre-sales off the plan amid low investor appetite.”

Mr Lorusso said with rents barely covering mortgage repayments, it was becoming harder to justify holding rental properties in Victoria.

“We’re getting anywhere between 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent yield, which is really low. And then we’re getting all these rental legislation changes, which easily adds to more than $1000 a year just for compliance,” he said.

“And now we’re told that we can’t put up the rent for two years, and then they’re going to tell us how much we can put it up for, and also tell us we can’t get rid of our tenants without very specific reasons. So, there’s just too many obstacles to jump. That’s the problem.”

Mr Andrews on Sunday refused to rule out rent freezes and caps or a tourism levy, including on Airbnb rentals, for a package he said would also streamline planning decisions to allow “good decisions, faster” to increase supply and ease the housing shortage. “Everything is on the table,” Mr Andrews said.

CoreLogic calculates that rental income rose by $266 a month on average, however, interest rates increased by $976, leaving landlords with a $709 shortfall each month.

Darren Spencer, who owns three investment properties in Melbourne, said uncertainty about policy was more concerning than the cash flow squeeze from higher rates.

“It’s not just the plan to cap rental increases for me, it is the fact that I feel that the Victorian government was constantly increasing costs for property investors,” Mr Spencer said.

“We would prefer to keep our properties, but it’s just becoming really hard and too risky to be in this market. Partly because interest rates are rising quicker than we expected, but we planned for those increases.

“What we didn’t plan for was the extra land tax that’s recently been announced. We also didn’t plan for rental freezes. And what’s really worrying is not knowing what happens next. We’ve just lost lots of confidence that Victoria is a stable state to invest in.”

Louis Christopher, SQM managing director said any cap on rents would be counterproductive.

“The proposal to cap rents and prevent landlords from lifting it more frequently than once every two years is dangerous,” Mr Christopher said.

“It is very likely to lead to properties being withdrawn from the long-term leasing market and be placed into the short-term accommodation market.

“It discourages and reduces confidence in existing investors and would be investors into the market, so this has a material impact upon forward supply of rental properties.

Rental caps have, been tried in other countries, and it’s miserably failed in those countries.”

Other states such as SA decided to cap rental increases to once a year, in line with NSW, Queensland and Tasmania.

”The Malinauskas government has recently completed an extensive review of the Residential Tenancies Act and we continue to act decisively to address rental affordability including banning rent bidding, ending no cause evictions and increasing the notice period to end a tenancy from 28 days to 60 days resulting in longer tenancies,” a South Australian government spokesperson said.

Jessica, a local Sydney woman in her early thirties, has two admin roles at separate companies, one in the field she ultimately wants to get into.

She works four days a week in job one, and two (sometimes three) days a week in job two, with one shared day at both.

Are you following?

It sounds complicated, but Jessica makes balancing two jobs look pretty easy.

She stays vigilant and busy and isn’t even worried about getting caught.

Since then, Jessica has continued to hustle in both jobs due mounting financial pressure of the cost of living crisis, and she’s not alone in her pursuit of extra cash.

According to HR software company Employment Hero’s 2022 Remote Work Report, 51 per cent of workers in Australia have a second income stream, and some of them are earning their extra income simultaneously.

In fact, there’s a word for people working two jobs like Jessica, it’s called “overemployement”.

The trend took off during the pandemic where people could suddenly work privately from their homes and has been accelerated by the cost of living crisis.

Yet Labor’s first two appointments to the Reserve Bank were former ACTU officials.

Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has appointed Chris Barrett, who preceded him as chief of staff to Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan, to head the government’s chief independent economic advisory body, the Productivity Commission.

Dr Chalmers suggests that Mr Barrett was chosen by a rigorous and merit-based process.

But, to many, it will look like installing a trusted Labor econocrat insider who now works for the Andrews government in Victoria to be part of the Treasurer’s plan – as urged by the unions – to “renew, refocus, and revitalise” the Productivity Commission.

Mr Barrett’s predecessor as chairman of the Productivity Commission, Michael Brennan, worked for Liberal politicians Senator Nick Minchin and former Victorian treasurer Alan Stockdale. But as the son of the globally renowned public choice professor, Geoff Brennan, Mr Brennan – who kept a copy of Joseph Schumpeter’s Theory of Economic Development, as we reported in 2019 – has by and large maintained the pro-market approach of the Productivity Commission and its predecessors starting with Alf Rattigan at the Tariff Board in the early 1970s.

Demonstrating that granting protection or subsidies to politically favoured industries imposed costs on consumers and other businesses and industries was central to the economic reform era of the 1980s and 1990s that revived Australian prosperity. The ACTU now pejoratively calls this “neoliberalism” and wants to neuter the body that called out the union’s successful push for a return to “pattern bargaining” workplace laws as an anticompetitive drag on productivity. That ensured that the Productivity Commission was not invited to the Albanese government’s job summit last year.

Mr Barrett needs to demonstrate that his appointment is designed to protect a great Australian economic institution from such attacks, not to surrender to them.

After the billions of dollars Labor wasted on subsidies to make “green cars” in Australia while Mr Swan was Treasurer, the Productivity Commission already has called out the Albanese government’s fantasy of propping up an electric vehicle battery manufacturing industry in Australia.

As the government prepares to do battle next week in parliament over its $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, Mr Smith will tell the National Press Club on Tuesday Labor should instead levy a 40 per cent tax on “excess profits” earned by companies in the mining and non-mining sectors with an annual turnover of more than $100 million.

Backed by modelling conducted by Oxford Economics Australia, the policy would raise $511 billion in today’s dollars between 2023 and 2041. During that period, it would spend $28 billion to build 52,600 homes each year, for a total of 947,000 homes, which is the estimated shortfall in affordable and social housing by 2041.

The policy is similar to the Green’s “tycoon tax” which proposes a 40 per cent super profits tax on corporations with more than $100 million in turnover. It would apply to Australian companies and the Australian share of a multinational’s operations.

“I know the corporates and the status quo defenders will cry wolf,” Mr Smith will say on Tuesday.

“That’s their job, but they should understand it’s actually in their interests to get on board.

“The tax we propose can only sting you if you’re already lucky enough to be making super profits. For 99.7 per cent of Australian businesses this will never be an issue.”

Opposed by the Greens and the Coalition, the government cannot secure Senate passage of its $10 billion Housing Australia Affordability Fund. They would invest $10 billion with the Future Fund with at least $500 million a year in earnings used to build 30,000 social and affordable homes.

The Oxford Economics modelling says more is needed.

“Current government policies are not enough to close the housing gap,” it says.

“Australia’s state and territory governments have announced an estimated 30,000 new social dwellings earmarked for completion over the next five years.

“These policy aims are still well shy of the 750,700 dwellings needed to fill the current housing gap.”

The government argues the HAFF is just one element of its approach to housing affordability, noting it gave the states $2 billion last month to be spent straight away.

The Greens will pass the legislation unless the government commits to spend more on housing and orchestrates a national rent freeze.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has pointed out repeatedly the Commonwealth cannot order the states to act on rents, although some are moving individually.

The ACT has already put caps on rent increases and Victoria is proposing limiting rent increases to once every two years.

Greens housing spokesman Max Chandler-Mather said Victoria’s plan “demonstrates that momentum is building towards national rent controls”.

“With the Victorian Premier now considering the Greens policy to freeze rent increases for two years and cap rents after that, the Prime Minister can no longer pretend that states aren’t open to taking national leadership on rent control,” he added.

I spent last week in the rarefied Rocky Mountain air of the annual Aspen Security Forum. (Full disclosure, the FT is the ASF’s print media partner and my wife, Niamh King, is its director.)

One of its participants, James Cleverly, the UK’s foreign secretary, made the beguilingly simple point that wars are not like movies. They do not proceed in emotional sequencing for the benefit of its audience. They are messy, tragic, confusing and take longer than expected to reach that quality of exhaustion which brings most wars to an end.

We are nowhere near that point yet. But it was hard to miss the sense of impatience last week with the US government for allegedly foot-dragging on weapons supplies and with Ukraine itself for the so far anaemic results on the ground.

I recall exactly the same bipolar western mood swings last summer, which began in a triumphalist spirit over Ukraine’s repulsion of Russia’s invaders, then switched during the summer months to gloom over the apparent stalemate on the ground, before flipping back to euphoria in the autumn when Ukraine made big gains in the east and south.

It is conceivable that we are witnessing a repeat of 2022 with Ukraine making late summer breakthroughs having spent the previous months probing Russia’s weak points. But I have little evidence to back that up.

The likelier picture is that whatever gains Ukraine makes before this winter, the challenge of regaining its lost territory will get harder as time goes on. It is so much more difficult to attack than to defend.

I drew two conclusions from the last few days. The first is that the focus on the supposed lack of western long-range artillery and planes — Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and F-16s — is a bit of a red herring.

In my fireside conversation with Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden’s national security adviser, which you can watch here,

he convincingly made the point that neither was critical to Ukraine’s war effort. They will be important to Ukraine’s long-term defences, which is why the US has given the green light for other countries to transfer F-16s.

But this fight will neither be won nor lost in the skies. Ukraine’s immediate need is ammunition.

Sullivan said that he spent the first half an hour of each White House morning focusing solely on the 155mm shell supply problem.

Even if Ukraine does make significant inroads in the next three months, which seems like a reasonable bet, another winter will move both sides, plus their backers, closer to the point at which jaw-jaw will feel like an increasingly tempting alternative to war-war.

At some point, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who spoke to us by video last week, will need to sit down with Vladimir Putin, or his successor, to reach a deal.

There was also plenty of speculation on how far Putin’s grip had been weakened by the fact that Yevgeny Prigozhin, his former caterer and chief mercenary, had so far got away with his life for last month’s aborted march on Moscow. As CIA director Bill Burns told us, either emperor Putin has no clothes or he is taking a long time to get dressed. Putin’s fragility may be the biggest wild card of the coming months.

In keeping with Cleverly’s analogy, I have no cinematic conclusions to offer. We are at best in the middle stages of a war that is unlikely to reach a Hollywood-esque ending in which the aggressor is banished forever.

But the reality is that the US and its allies are providing an unprecedented range of support to ensure Russia loses this war, even if Ukraine’s ultimate victory will not be sweeping.

In addition to defanging Russia as an adversary, my guess is that this “special military operation” has made China’s Xi Jinping considerably less gung-ho on the prospect of a full-scale amphibious invasion of Taiwan — one of the conference’s other obsessions that I will write about soon. Do read my colleague, Felicia Schwartz, on the Ukraine news from Aspen.

The law prevents “medical interventions aimed at changing the sex of a person” and makes “the state registration of a change of gender without an operation” illegal. This means a person’s gender cannot be changed on legal documents such as birth records, as is happening in some instances in the West.

This would also apply to all identifying documents such as passports, which would only reflect the true biological sex of a person.

It passed both houses of Russian parliament rather quickly earlier in July, and has now become law of the land with Putin’s signature.

There is a key exception to the law – it doesn’t apply in cases of medical intervention to treat congenital anomalies, such as the rare condition of Hermaphroditism.

When first proposed the law had been framed as being necessary to protect traditional family values, per TASS:

The bill was initiated by speaker of the Russian State Duma (lower house of parliament) Vyacheslav Volodin and the leaders of the five factions.

During a meeting of the Council of Legislators in April, Volodin asked lawmakers to submit their proposals to address issues linked with gender-affirmation matters. Russian Justice Minister Konstantin Chuichenko told TASS earlier that a ban on changing gender in passports and other documents would be one of the first steps to enshrine family values into national law.

As for treating potential birth abnormalities in children, the bill’s language says this intervention is allowable “upon a decision from a medical commission of a federal state-run public health institution.”

Already, Russian has strong laws against what’s dubbed “LGBTQ propaganda” – which is intended particularly protect children.

– It can be difficult (I started a few months ago).

– I am trying to drink more Vodka but thats all the farther Ive gotten on my Russian,,,,,

– What’s not to like about Russia ?

– Remind me why I’m supposed to hate Russia again?
– Because MSM said so.

– Just signed your death warrant Vlad
The trannies are going to get together
and glue themselves to the NATO missiles

I’m quoting from it in my own book Cyclone Tracy and the Armed Forces – out late next year for the 50th anniversary – as he was part of the dive team deployed to Darwin after the cyclone.

The most powerful tool of course is the media, which is totally controlled by most of the same parent corporations with an allegiance to the globalist cabal at the top which ordains decisions and events.

This is why no candidate can be elected in virtually any European country who goes against the deep-state / war party.

As you know, the MSM is able to almost entirely control public discourse and sentiment around elections which means they almost always are able to manipulate the results into getting the desired candidate to win.

Thus, all of Europe is subordinated to the U.S. and globalist-banker conglomerate, which is why no European country is truly sovereign and which is further why—to answer your question—war can be manufactured at any time through this method.

They simply install whichever leader is capable of doing their bidding, usually a leader they have the most kompromat on, or is simply the most corrupt and amenable to bribery.

Ukraine is a rare example of where we got a ‘peek behind the curtain’ of how this works, much more in the open, partly because the corruption was so rampant, and the corrupt officials so easily bribed and manipulated that the U.S. officials dealing with them did so fairly artlessly without even worrying about scruples and nuance.

So we got gems like the Nuland tapes (“Yats is our guy”) or the new Burisma-Biden revelations, which now prove that Biden was simply paid $5M to get rid of Shokin, the prosecutor who was on Burisma’s case.

So the answer to your question is, those are the ‘conditions’—it’s the infinite corruptibility of compromised European politicians who are elected as part of fraudulent ‘elections’ entirely controlled by the globalist-bankster class elites which own the MSM which itself entirely steers the narratives revolving around any ‘election’.

Any opposition member or party who rises up against this is very simply decried and ridiculed by this entirely colonized MSM, with accusations like “nationalist, supremacist, bigot, etc.” and basically deplatformed into obscurity or irrelevancy.

Le Pen and many others are examples of this. She was only allowed to ‘come back’ to an extent once she began to ‘play along’ and denounce Russia.

Now, you can see Nigel Farage as an example, being completely deplatformed by his bank for heterodox views. Other politicians who have less power are simply smeared as ‘crackpots’ and completely erased from existence.

Just look at how they’re already deleting RFK Jr’s recent videos from YouTube and elsewhere, just like they entirely deleted/deplatformed Ron Paul back in the day, wiping out his campaign chances (same for Tulsi Gabbard and many others, as well).

Those are American examples but the same goes on in Europe, in fact even worse because Europe has even more repressive ‘anti-free speech’ regimes.

However, I will say that slowly but surely, the dissident often-but-not-always rightwing coalitions are gaining power, just look at German AfD’s recent surge in the pollings.