Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Undefined discussion subject.

12346»

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 21,769
    Eabhal said:

    Unpopular said:

    ohnotnow said:

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-expected-announce-rent-27917204

    "Nicola Sturgeon expected to announce rent freeze for tenants in Scotland"

    One parliamentary source said if the cost of a freeze was met by landlords the policy would cost the Government nothing.

    That'll work well with increasing mortgage rates.....
    I feel like this is going to trash the rental sector in Scotland. A lot of people, especially on the left, are very hostile to the whole sector but, speaking as someone who has rented extensively, I don't want it destroyed, I want it fit for purpose and abuses in the system stopped. I have no problem with the old woman who rented me a flat, at a decent price, which allowed me to have a place to live for years, however I was less impressed by the green-voting landlady who kicked me out to list the property on AirBnB...

    Anything that will reduce rental stock, in areas where the availability of property might not be able to keep up demand, is likely to increase scarcity and competition. This will increase prices, either legally or illegally, and we will see more 'bidding over the asking price' for rental properties. Those that don't just get sold, that is.

    I know BTLs sit at the right hand of Hitler/the Devil for some, but not everyone is in a position to buy nor wants to be tied down by property. While it doesn't make long-term financial sense to hand over your cash to pay someone else's mortgage, landlords provide a service in exchange for money, a pretty vital one imo. Squeezing the sector until the pips squeak is not likely to benefit tenants.
    The history of rent control schemes tells us exactly what will happen. Lots of landlords will stop renting property. The history in New York, for example, is fun reading.
    We studied the Paris version at uni. Not pretty.
    It's going to move even more property in Edinburgh / Glasgow / Aberdeen to Airbnb.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859
    Scott_xP said:

    So close, but the pilot ruined it all with a left turn. https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1567089849995345920/photo/1

    img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/pd/yjoq7ewwwk55.jpg" alt="" />

    "And if you think that's a massive package, wait til you see my energy plan"

    Stealing my joke, mikeysmith!
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Outgoing head of Downing St comms Guto Harri reflects on his time at Number 10 in a LinkedIn post -notes the Conservative party's "brutal" appetite for self-harm https://twitter.com/camillahmturner/status/1567088637514219521/photo/1

    Good to see a head of comms who writes "the dye was cast."

    A sure sign of a government that has run out of woad.
    The wrong woad was Pict
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,062
    Today, for first time in history, we will have six former Prime Ministers still alive: John Major (79), Tony Blair (69), Gordon Brown (71), David Cameron (55), Theresa May (65) and Boris Johnson (58). What’s remarkable is how young these ex-PMs are - none is yet 80.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1567074637825150978
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Unpopular said:

    ohnotnow said:

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-expected-announce-rent-27917204

    "Nicola Sturgeon expected to announce rent freeze for tenants in Scotland"

    One parliamentary source said if the cost of a freeze was met by landlords the policy would cost the Government nothing.

    That'll work well with increasing mortgage rates.....
    I feel like this is going to trash the rental sector in Scotland. A lot of people, especially on the left, are very hostile to the whole sector but, speaking as someone who has rented extensively, I don't want it destroyed, I want it fit for purpose and abuses in the system stopped. I have no problem with the old woman who rented me a flat, at a decent price, which allowed me to have a place to live for years, however I was less impressed by the green-voting landlady who kicked me out to list the property on AirBnB...

    Anything that will reduce rental stock, in areas where the availability of property might not be able to keep up demand, is likely to increase scarcity and competition. This will increase prices, either legally or illegally, and we will see more 'bidding over the asking price' for rental properties. Those that don't just get sold, that is.

    I know BTLs sit at the right hand of Hitler/the Devil for some, but not everyone is in a position to buy nor wants to be tied down by property. While it doesn't make long-term financial sense to hand over your cash to pay someone else's mortgage, landlords provide a service in exchange for money, a pretty vital one imo. Squeezing the sector until the pips squeak is not likely to benefit tenants.
    The history of rent control schemes tells us exactly what will happen. Lots of landlords will stop renting property. The history in New York, for example, is fun reading.
    We studied the Paris version at uni. Not pretty.
    It's going to move even more property in Edinburgh / Glasgow / Aberdeen to Airbnb.

    They have brought in some short-term let restrictions in Edinburgh. Thankfully.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    glw said:

    The history of rent control schemes tells us exactly what will happen. Lots of landlords will stop renting property. The history in New York, for example, is fun reading.

    Aren't rent controls one of the few things where almost all economists agree that they tend to produce bad outcomes? Pretty much the text book example of "popular but bad".
    Build more houses + punish empty ones.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,062
    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881
  • glwglw Posts: 8,777
    Eabhal said:

    glw said:

    The history of rent control schemes tells us exactly what will happen. Lots of landlords will stop renting property. The history in New York, for example, is fun reading.

    Aren't rent controls one of the few things where almost all economists agree that they tend to produce bad outcomes? Pretty much the text book example of "popular but bad".
    Build more houses + punish empty ones.
    Build more everything. The UK has been coasting for decades on infrastructure built by the Victorians and in the post-war years.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,200
    Unpopular said:

    ohnotnow said:

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-expected-announce-rent-27917204

    "Nicola Sturgeon expected to announce rent freeze for tenants in Scotland"

    One parliamentary source said if the cost of a freeze was met by landlords the policy would cost the Government nothing.

    That'll work well with increasing mortgage rates.....
    I feel like this is going to trash the rental sector in Scotland. A lot of people, especially on the left, are very hostile to the whole sector but, speaking as someone who has rented extensively, I don't want it destroyed, I want it fit for purpose and abuses in the system stopped. I have no problem with the old woman who rented me a flat, at a decent price, which allowed me to have a place to live for years, however I was less impressed by the green-voting landlady who kicked me out to list the property on AirBnB...

    Anything that will reduce rental stock, in areas where the availability of property might not be able to keep up demand, is likely to increase scarcity and competition. This will increase prices, either legally or illegally, and we will see more 'bidding over the asking price' for rental properties. Those that don't just get sold, that is.

    I know BTLs sit at the right hand of Hitler/the Devil for some, but not everyone is in a position to buy nor wants to be tied down by property. While it doesn't make long-term financial sense to hand over your cash to pay someone else's mortgage, landlords provide a service in exchange for money, a pretty vital one imo. Squeezing the sector until the pips squeak is not likely to benefit tenants.
    These are very good insights just as true for England.
    There is something similar going on in Ireland.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/report-claims-rent-controls-have-backfired-and-worsened-crisis-1.4881856

    Buy to let and landlords have been absolutely trashed through tax and regulation, so the effect is that the flat I rented out 5 years ago for £600 per month is now being let out at £1200 and the town has a massive homelessness problem. Even at £1200 per month I doubt the landlord is making any kind of meaningful return that justifies the risks.

    All this was obvious to me as far back as 2016, I worked for a council who were reliant on private sector landlords to deal with the statutory responsibilities it had to find housing for vulnerable people, and the landlords were just selling up en masse and quitting thus creating perpetual crisis and massively escalating costs.

    There is a shift to this 'large landlords' coming in, build to rent, co living etc; which may help increase quality and capacity in the high end of the market, but that isn't really going to help the situation for poor/ordinary working people, as landlords in this part of the market are exiting en -masse.

    It is just a disaster which the tories are asleep over, real policy making and stakeholder engagement has been replaced with lazy 'f**k business' slurs, combined with simple anti landlord leftism; and of course the universal desire to get credit for new progressive regulation, like building safety laws, etc, no matter what the cost. Reminds me a bit of Arthur Scargill going on about the coal board, 'the loss is without limit', etc.




  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,222
    edited September 6
    glw said:

    The history of rent control schemes tells us exactly what will happen. Lots of landlords will stop renting property. The history in New York, for example, is fun reading.

    Aren't rent controls one of the few things where almost all economists agree that they tend to produce bad outcomes? Pretty much the text book example of "popular but bad".
    Seems to work well enough throughout Germany's largest cities, and Holland.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859
    Johnson arrives at Balmoral. Truss leaves the airport, an hour and a half behind him.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,555

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881


    That’s been the case for about 15 years (covid aside)
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,758
    edited September 6
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Metaphor klaxon: Truss Force One stuck in holding pattern 🤣 https://twitter.com/tc1415/status/1567087433711321090/photo/1

    CFIT into Ben Macdui coming up... Johnson back as PM by the time Emmerdale comes on.
    Well, if the USAF can do it...

    Right mess that was. Seemed very keen on removing every last piece though, unlike all the other crash sites in the hills. What did they have on board?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    edited September 6

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One can perhaps exaggerate what small gestures say about a person. Still, Truss's failure to turn to Sunak and shake his hand before going up to give her speech yesterday was small-minded (if deliberate) and rude (if not).

    How hard is it to get this sort of stuff right, especially for someone who has been in politics as long as she has?

    Didn't look at her husband either. Just up and off like a whippet!
    She has what she wants. The glory of being PM - power, patronage, control.

    I agree with @Cyclefree about watching someone's behaviour and their involuntary gestures as an indication of their attitudes and personality. On that basis, I am not expecting much from Ms Truss.
    The husband wasn't particularly demonstrative either!
    Sounds like a match made in heaven :wink:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    A friend of mine (Anglo-Russian, anti-war) returned from Moscow last night (via a flight from Turkey).

    He reports that there was little visible war propaganda in Moscow, no signs of shortages of food. The shops were well-stocked (in fact, he said, better than before the war).

    There were not many visible signs of dissent, people were enjoying themselves in central Moscow in bars, etc.

    He concludes Moscow has successful managed to ignore the war.

    Of course, he was only in parts of Moscow.

    But, it seems clear that Russia is not about to collapse, sanctions have seemingly not had much visible effect on the lives of ordinary people at least in Moscow and there is no sign of the end of Putin's regime.

    Putin's regime won't fall from of a lack of food in Moscow, it will come about because they lack the resources to continue to fight in Ukraine.

    Where do the troops come from? Where do the shells? The tanks? The helicopters? The bullets?
    If you have money, someone will always sell you bullets & shells.

    My own view is close to that of @NickPalmer . The war is heading for a stalemate.

    Tell us how you think the next few months will pan out. And we can compare notes in 6 months time.
    That's a fair challenge.

    I think the war will end early in 2023, when the Russians become unable to supply their troops in Ukraine. Because that is the real challenge. And it's not just buying the bullets, you need to buy the bullets and shells that fit your weapons. Which is why, of course, that the Russians are buying up the stocks of the North Koreans.

    But even before 2023, the signs of strain will become increasingly obvious. A large number of Russian troops will be captured west of the Dnieper. And that will be a shock: because until now, yes, people have been injured or died, but suddenly someone's son will be on the Internet as a prisoner of war. That's a lot harder to hide.

    And Russia doesn't have an infinite number of young men able to go into battle. And they're not fighting to defend their homes. They're poorly equipped, and increasingly poorly supplied, fighting people who are supposed to be welcoming them with open arms.

    The signs of Russia's defeat are increasingly clear: the abandoned referendum, the desire to start talks, the raiding of the asylum for soldiers, the desperate purchases from North Korea.

    And all the while, the West keeps sending weapons to Ukraine, while the Ukrainian army gets better trained.

    Stalemate requires Ukraine not to be capable of offensive operations, and it requires the Russians to be capable of defensive operations, and on repelling the inevitable attrition that comes from holding on in a hostile land.
    Stalemate still seems likely to me, as offensive operations will be hard and some in the west will jump at the chance to have a ceasefire.

    So it comes down to if the US keeps on supplying for offensive Ukrainian operations. If they do, they can hopefully push Russia back at least to the 2014 line.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,282
    Unpopular said:

    Unpopular said:

    Unionism is now a rump of weirdos, bigots and amateur Photoshoppers.



    Many on the Unionist right just can't seem to see that, even if they're able to oppose a referendum in the short-term by being *shudder* muscular, that their actions increase the likelihood of independence in the long-term if a referendum were to happen.

    Last night, even I was wondering where my own vote would go. I've always maintained that the Union works better for Scotland than independence, and regardless my 'heart' (in the heart Vs head debate) lies with the Union also. But what happens if the head starts saying independence instead?
    Fair play for admitting it.
    I’ve always assumed ‘heart’ Unionists were immovable just as ‘heart’ Nats are in the other direction, but…
    I think not, because the decision for independence is multi-faceted. I mean, I have a lot of sympathy for the Union and I would be sad to see it dissolve (or whatever would happen) in the event of a hypothetical Yes vote, regardless of how I voted (of course, by the time I'm voting for it, independence is likely guaranteed a pretty big win). My heart might always be Unionist (pumping weaker and more sclerotic over time, perhaps, though I hope not) but if the argument for the head swings decisively towards independence, then I have my own future to think about.

    In the end, I think it would come down to which side can persuade people that their interests and the interests of Scotland are better served by either Independence or Union. I know a few Unionists who would vote for independence, while feeling attached to the Union, if they felt it would be better for them. There are also those on the Nationalist side who want independence but feel that the economic case (as an example) isn't there and don't want to take the risk.
    I guess I’m thinking huge❤️ partisans on either side (slightly under a third each?) but yes, the case is faceted and nuanced for the remaining(!) third+. The churn between 2014 No voters persuaded by the stay in the EU arguments turning to Yes is under examined I think.

    Personally in 2011 I was open to considering a genuine devo max offer in the unlikely event it was part of a referendum, but the next 3 years shredded any vestigial affection and respect for the Union. The subsequent 8 years made it permanent.
  • Today, for first time in history, we will have six former Prime Ministers still alive: John Major (79), Tony Blair (69), Gordon Brown (71), David Cameron (55), Theresa May (65) and Boris Johnson (58). What’s remarkable is how young these ex-PMs are - none is yet 80.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1567074637825150978

    Isn't it simply that we've been through a lot in short order? Looked at historically, Cameron and Blair were fairly young (i.e. just in the list of 10 youngest British PMs). But the rest were absolutely typical age - late 40s to late 50s on taking office. Truss is basically Major's age in 1990 - slightly younger than average but not much.

    So this is about turnover of PMs, not "aren't PMs young these days?"
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136

    Unionism is now a rump of weirdos, bigots and amateur Photoshoppers.



    Lol. "Weirdos and bigots" says an Anglophobe Scottish Nationalist. I have seen a lot of psychological projection on this site over the years, but that one takes the prize. What next? A Russian Putinist accusing others of being expansionist? Boris Johnson accusing someone of being a liar?

    In case anyone forgets the true voices of Scottish Nationalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPv59649LE4
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,062
    Voters may like Liz Truss more than you think
    New British PM is being written off by many, but she has a chance to make an impact.


    https://www.politico.eu/article/voters-like-liz-truss-more-you-think/
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,813
    edited September 6

    Today, for first time in history, we will have six former Prime Ministers still alive: John Major (79), Tony Blair (69), Gordon Brown (71), David Cameron (55), Theresa May (65) and Boris Johnson (58). What’s remarkable is how young these ex-PMs are - none is yet 80.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1567074637825150978

    Also shows quite well where the recent generational shifts took place. Truss represents a hop of 8 years and, if you are inclined to go by such labels, decisively into Gen X.

    It doesn't quite feel like a big shift though - the feeling of the continuity disregard for detailed public administration* wherever possible, almost unique to post 2010 Tory politics, is strong.

    * Salami slicing, austerity without a strong reform agenda, the reform that was done left to enthusiast ministers (UC, Lansley), that letter to Oxfordshire county council, the opposition to any administrative Brexit and the defenestration of May, the forever rolling of transitional Brexit arrangements, the reluctant last minutism.of COVID administration (with a few honourable ministerial exceptions), the collapse of the courts/multiple areas of public service, the headline grabbing non-plans on immigration, the vacuum on energy crisis, the choice of detail free Truss over administrator Sunak.

    ** EDIT: All the above is, of course, the Cosplay Thatcherism of the party as a whole. Things should be done privately = public administration doesn't really matter. She'd be horrified. Truss leads a party already in her image.

    Just, govern.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,316
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I’m in a peculiar but fairly charming town square in the tiny Alentejano village of Odeceixe

    It’s full of a strange mix of old Portuguese hombres, surfy eurokids smoking weed, and north European blonde boho tattooed rich families with exuberant tiny kids speaking impeccable English tho half of them are Dutch or German

    It’s like Baja California meets Glastonbury in a piazza in Portmeirion

    Hard to capture the unique atmos in a photo



    Slight vibe of a Solihull beer garden I was in a few weeks ago tbh.
    This whole coast is quite libertine and hedonistic. A secret bohemian hideaway

    It’s often jarring. Because it looks like normal impoverished-but-quaint Portugal, with old people sleeping in the sun by peeling whitewashed houses, then you turn a corner and there’s five Danish kids playing flutes and six British surfers vaping marijuana and a Polish artist building a studio

    I approve
    You don't approve of the British surfers being able to stay there for more than 3 months at a time, though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238

    The carbon footprint created today because the Queen is too lazy to come down to London is an outrage.

    If she isn't up to the job then she should make way for somebody who can.

    I knew without looking you would make this comment several days ago when it was announced.

    It simply doesnt work when 'the job' does not require the event take place in London. So even as phony outrage it doesnt work.

    A Regency might be appropriate now. But not for failing to do something that isnt required.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Excellent hire in razor-sharp @mjhsinclair to be Chief Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister.

    A one person think -tank much like his new boss.

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1567088465996562432


    Hmmmm, who was the last "one person think tank" ushered into Downing Street to sort things out...

    A bit silly calling him a one-person think tank at the same time the not-chief economic adviser, Shabir Merali, is also announced.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 566

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238

    Today, for first time in history, we will have six former Prime Ministers still alive: John Major (79), Tony Blair (69), Gordon Brown (71), David Cameron (55), Theresa May (65) and Boris Johnson (58). What’s remarkable is how young these ex-PMs are - none is yet 80.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1567074637825150978

    All younger than the US president.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    Ghedebrav said:

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
    Wasn't London best in the 1990s?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,316

    Unionism is now a rump of weirdos, bigots and amateur Photoshoppers.



    Euch that is nasty. Some messed up people out there, frequently featuring the union flag in their thumbnail.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,538
    edited September 6
    kle4 said:

    Today, for first time in history, we will have six former Prime Ministers still alive: John Major (79), Tony Blair (69), Gordon Brown (71), David Cameron (55), Theresa May (65) and Boris Johnson (58). What’s remarkable is how young these ex-PMs are - none is yet 80.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1567074637825150978

    All younger than the US president.
    But not the previous four presidents. 76, 61, 76 and 76 respectively. (what was it about 1946?)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944

    Another plane at Northolt taking Truss to Balmoral

    That's bonkers, why didn't they go on the same plane? We're in the middle of an energy crisis! And Johnson could have shared some of his top tips for governing/best spots in No 10 for a fumble.
    It would be a security risk for them to be on the same plane.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,316
    Ghedebrav said:

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
    Best stuff in London is in zone 2 now, especially south of the river. Central London is a naff tourist zone, and places like Shoreditch haven't been cool since the 1990s.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136

    Unionism is now a rump of weirdos, bigots and amateur Photoshoppers.



    Euch that is nasty. Some messed up people out there, frequently featuring the union flag in their thumbnail.
    There are indeed. There are also some VERY unpleasant people who utilise the cross of St Andrew for their fascism.
  • Unionism is now a rump of weirdos, bigots and amateur Photoshoppers.



    Euch that is nasty. Some messed up people out there, frequently featuring the union flag in their thumbnail.
    I cannot understand how anyone can post this image of violence towards women, no matter their prejudices

    Indeed this site deserves more respect
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 566
    Andy_JS said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
    Wasn't London best in the 1990s?
    1960s shurely.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Another plane at Northolt taking Truss to Balmoral

    That's bonkers, why didn't they go on the same plane? We're in the middle of an energy crisis! And Johnson could have shared some of his top tips for governing/best spots in No 10 for a fumble.
    It would be a security risk for them to be on the same plane.
    In theory, yes. In practice, do any homegrown terrorists have ground-to-air missiles? They'd be more at risk taking those Cabinet photos outside Number 10.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Morning all
    The age of Truss dawns. Jeepers, and i might add, creepers.
    Looks like the big package approach is locked in, Reeves already tweeting the 'please, Miss, we said it before they said it' whine this morning.
    Regrettably we are in a 'only this fucking enormous Albatross necklace will do' scenario.
    Not seeing any plan for businesses yet..... thats the key bit that determines whether this is a bold opening gambit or a load of old toot.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,062
    Scotland's first period dignity officer axed after international storm
    When Jason Grant was named as Scotland's first period dignity officer, it sparked debate across the globe.

    Just three weeks later he has left his job as the controversial role was axed over ‘threats’ and ‘abuse’.


    https://twitter.com/thecourieruk/status/1567099265872285696
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,555
    Ghedebrav said:

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
    A ludicrous remark

    London is so enormous and SO diverse

    Thirty years ago if you talked about “a night out” in London you meant Soho and Covent Garden. This summer Soho has been rammed, exuberant and super noisy - people making up for Covid - through the week. But yes it has changed. The sex industry has almost gone and been replaced by gay culture, tons of good new restaurants and members clubs. Is that decline? Not sure

    But more importantly there are now multiple areas where you go for a good night out. Camden, Shoreditch, Angel, Hackney, Peckham, Brixton, Notting Hill, Chelsea, the new King’s Cross and more. Even Canary Wharf

    And they are all completely different. Grungey or glitzy. Studenty or artsy. Touristy or local. Historic or new

    London has problems. As do many world cities right now. But a lack of diversity or vibrancy is not one of them
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,913
    edited September 6

    Unpopular said:

    Unpopular said:

    Unionism is now a rump of weirdos, bigots and amateur Photoshoppers.



    Many on the Unionist right just can't seem to see that, even if they're able to oppose a referendum in the short-term by being *shudder* muscular, that their actions increase the likelihood of independence in the long-term if a referendum were to happen.

    Last night, even I was wondering where my own vote would go. I've always maintained that the Union works better for Scotland than independence, and regardless my 'heart' (in the heart Vs head debate) lies with the Union also. But what happens if the head starts saying independence instead?
    Fair play for admitting it.
    I’ve always assumed ‘heart’ Unionists were immovable just as ‘heart’ Nats are in the other direction, but…
    I think not, because the decision for independence is multi-faceted. I mean, I have a lot of sympathy for the Union and I would be sad to see it dissolve (or whatever would happen) in the event of a hypothetical Yes vote, regardless of how I voted (of course, by the time I'm voting for it, independence is likely guaranteed a pretty big win). My heart might always be Unionist (pumping weaker and more sclerotic over time, perhaps, though I hope not) but if the argument for the head swings decisively towards independence, then I have my own future to think about.

    In the end, I think it would come down to which side can persuade people that their interests and the interests of Scotland are better served by either Independence or Union. I know a few Unionists who would vote for independence, while feeling attached to the Union, if they felt it would be better for them. There are also those on the Nationalist side who want independence but feel that the economic case (as an example) isn't there and don't want to take the risk.
    I guess I’m thinking huge❤️ partisans on either side (slightly under a third each?) but yes, the case is faceted and nuanced for the remaining(!) third+. The churn between 2014 No voters persuaded by the stay in the EU arguments turning to Yes is under examined I think.

    Personally in 2011 I was open to considering a genuine devo max offer in the unlikely event it was part of a referendum, but the next 3 years shredded any vestigial affection and respect for the Union. The subsequent 8 years made it permanent.
    It still isn't that big given Remain won 62% in 2016 in Scotland and Yes is still nowhere near that.

    Remember too that some Leave voting Yes voters in 2014 have now switched to No and some Nationalists like Jim Sillars backed Brexit
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 566

    Ghedebrav said:

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
    Best stuff in London is in zone 2 now, especially south of the river. Central London is a naff tourist zone, and places like Shoreditch haven't been cool since the 1990s.
    It's all in pockets though - a brewery in Bermondsey, a pub in Stoke Newington, a caff in Peckham.

    Central London really *shouldn't* be a naff tourist zone, or at least not all of it. There are big universities, loads of workplaces in interesting sectors and yet... yeah, it is all kind of naff and touristy. There's the odd gem of a pub, but by and large you can't have a fun varied night in town on foot the way you can in other cities.

    The final nail was the closure of the Foundry on Old Street - that was the last countercultural outpost of nightlife in Z1.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,282
    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
    A ludicrous remark

    London is so enormous and SO diverse

    Thirty years ago if you talked about “a night out” in London you meant Soho and Covent Garden. This summer Soho has been rammed, exuberant and super noisy - people making up for Covid - through the week. But yes it has changed. The sex industry has almost gone and been replaced by gay culture, tons of good new restaurants and members clubs. Is that decline? Not sure

    But more importantly there are now multiple areas where you go for a good night out. Camden, Shoreditch, Angel, Hackney, Peckham, Brixton, Notting Hill, Chelsea, the new King’s Cross and more. Even Canary Wharf

    And they are all completely different. Grungey or glitzy. Studenty or artsy. Touristy or local. Historic or new

    London has problems. As do many world cities right now. But a lack of diversity or vibrancy is not one of them
    It’s diversity seems to have largely lacked a flint knapper recently.

    When you finally go expat you’ll be one of those massive nostalgists in UJ shorts tearfully waxing lyrical about Carling and Scotch eggs.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    Dorries, the most ludicrous appointment of incredulous stupidity, even by Johnson's standards, has claimed she was offered the option to stay on but has declined and is returning to the backbenches. Good fecking riddance.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    Priti Patel and Frost are out too! Maybe if Rees Mogg isn't in perhaps I might even think there is a chance for this new government.
  • Dorries, the most ludicrous appointment of incredulous stupidity, even by Johnson's standards, has claimed she was offered the option to stay on but has declined and is returning to the backbenches. Good fecking riddance.

    True, but I'm not yet excluding the possibility that the Truss cabinet is going to be too bonkers for even Mad Nad.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,555

    Unionism is now a rump of weirdos, bigots and amateur Photoshoppers.



    Euch that is nasty. Some messed up people out there, frequently featuring the union flag in their thumbnail.
    Stop being a snowflake

    Obscene, vulgar and scatological caricature of our leaders has been a noble British tradition since Gillray





    I could have posted much more outre images but I don’t want to agitate the mods
  • Priti Patel and Frost are out too! Maybe if Rees Mogg isn't in perhaps I might even think there is a chance for this new government.

    I think we will find he remains unfortunately but Patel, Dorries and Frost out is good news
  • Dorries, the most ludicrous appointment of incredulous stupidity, even by Johnson's standards, has claimed she was offered the option to stay on but has declined and is returning to the backbenches. Good fecking riddance.

    Shortly off to the Lords if rumours are correct (isn't this stuff supposed to be confidential?). I'd imagine Liz Truss will want to get Boris's resignation honours list out of the way as soon as possible in order to get BJ-loyalists out of the Commons and by-elections out of the way before they can do any harm.
  • New thread.
  • Leon said:

    Unionism is now a rump of weirdos, bigots and amateur Photoshoppers.



    Euch that is nasty. Some messed up people out there, frequently featuring the union flag in their thumbnail.
    Stop being a snowflake

    Obscene, vulgar and scatological caricature of our leaders has been a noble British tradition since Gillray





    I could have posted much more outre images but I don’t want to agitate the mods
    It is not being a snowflake to object to any image depicting violence to women
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,017

    Andy_JS said:

    Another plane at Northolt taking Truss to Balmoral

    That's bonkers, why didn't they go on the same plane? We're in the middle of an energy crisis! And Johnson could have shared some of his top tips for governing/best spots in No 10 for a fumble.
    It would be a security risk for them to be on the same plane.
    In theory, yes. In practice, do any homegrown terrorists have ground-to-air missiles? They'd be more at risk taking those Cabinet photos outside Number 10.
    The PIRA had some Soviet MANPADS. Allegedly decommissioned.

    There is a list of attacks on civilian aircraft with Soviet MANPADS (and the equivalent Chinese versions) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_system#Against_civilian_aircraft
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,813
    NEW THREAD (first safely bagged :) )
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,062
    The NYT's latest "hot take":

    Britain’s Next Prime Minister Is Still in Thrall to the Empire

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/opinion/truss-uk-prime-minister.html

    For a former Lib Dem, republican Remainer that's quite a turn around!
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 566
    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
    A ludicrous remark

    London is so enormous and SO diverse

    Thirty years ago if you talked about “a night out” in London you meant Soho and Covent Garden. This summer Soho has been rammed, exuberant and super noisy - people making up for Covid - through the week. But yes it has changed. The sex industry has almost gone and been replaced by gay culture, tons of good new restaurants and members clubs. Is that decline? Not sure

    But more importantly there are now multiple areas where you go for a good night out. Camden, Shoreditch, Angel, Hackney, Peckham, Brixton, Notting Hill, Chelsea, the new King’s Cross and more. Even Canary Wharf

    And they are all completely different. Grungey or glitzy. Studenty or artsy. Touristy or local. Historic or new

    London has problems. As do many world cities right now. But a lack of diversity or vibrancy is not one of them
    I speak as I find - I've not lived in London since 2009 but am down there (barring the plague years) once or twice a month. I've not been out in Soho for ages but kind of wrote it off after a few expensive and dull nights in the mid-2010s; if it's reviving a bit: good.

    Coal drops and that around KX is fine, I guess but more shops than anything (my kids love the fountains though); it's interesting that these little plazas of gentrification - with a the same small bouji chains - are popping up in a lot of neighbourhoods - Finsbury park, Elephant (yeah zone one, but barely) etc. In some cases, I can't complain - Elephant probably a case in point. But it feels more to me like homogenisation than anything.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,096

    Morning all
    The age of Truss dawns. Jeepers, and i might add, creepers.
    Looks like the big package approach is locked in, Reeves already tweeting the 'please, Miss, we said it before they said it' whine this morning.
    Regrettably we are in a 'only this fucking enormous Albatross necklace will do' scenario.
    Not seeing any plan for businesses yet..... thats the key bit that determines whether this is a bold opening gambit or a load of old toot.

    I find my pleasure at seeing the back of Johnson significantly tempered by seeing the front of Truss. The gloves will have to stay on. Ah well. Upside is it'll keep my energy levels up.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,555
    Ghedebrav said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
    Best stuff in London is in zone 2 now, especially south of the river. Central London is a naff tourist zone, and places like Shoreditch haven't been cool since the 1990s.
    It's all in pockets though - a brewery in Bermondsey, a pub in Stoke Newington, a caff in Peckham.

    Central London really *shouldn't* be a naff tourist zone, or at least not all of it. There are big universities, loads of workplaces in interesting sectors and yet... yeah, it is all kind of naff and touristy. There's the odd gem of a pub, but by and large you can't have a fun varied night in town on foot the way you can in other cities.

    The final nail was the closure of the Foundry on Old Street - that was the last countercultural outpost of nightlife in Z1.
    If you want counter culture you don’t go to Zone 1. It’s gone upmarket because it’s the throbbing heart of maybe the greatest city in the world

    With incredible restaurants and theatres and art galleries and the rest. So, no, it doesn’t have druggy warehouse parties it has posh members clubs

    But can you have a fantastic night out? Of course. It’s brilliant. I did it two weeks ago and ending up drinking absinthe martinis at 3am in a garden in the middle of soho with a queer designer from
    Mauritius and some dancers. Superb

    If you want counter culture you go further out where stuff is cheaper and the kids hang
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136

    Priti Patel and Frost are out too! Maybe if Rees Mogg isn't in perhaps I might even think there is a chance for this new government.

    I think we will find he remains unfortunately but Patel, Dorries and Frost out is good news
    Well I suppose the hyperbolically and oxymoronically titled "Office for Brexit Opportunities" is definitely the right one for him. As there is no "Office for Reactionary Pointless Nonsense" then this is the closest he can get
  • PJHPJH Posts: 251

    Today, for first time in history, we will have six former Prime Ministers still alive: John Major (79), Tony Blair (69), Gordon Brown (71), David Cameron (55), Theresa May (65) and Boris Johnson (58). What’s remarkable is how young these ex-PMs are - none is yet 80.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1567074637825150978

    Isn't it simply that we've been through a lot in short order? Looked at historically, Cameron and Blair were fairly young (i.e. just in the list of 10 youngest British PMs). But the rest were absolutely typical age - late 40s to late 50s on taking office. Truss is basically Major's age in 1990 - slightly younger than average but not much.

    So this is about turnover of PMs, not "aren't PMs young these days?"
    Someone like me, a soft pragmatic Unionist, would have been a No voter in 2014 without giving it a moment's thought, so obviously was Independence a bad idea.

    Now outside the EU, my vote would be up for grabs as a way to rejoin and get rid of the nonsense in Westminster. (I am conscious that not being a Scot or in Scotland, I might be failing to notice equivalent nonsense in Edinburgh)
  • LDLFLDLF Posts: 105
    edited September 6

    The NYT's latest "hot take":

    Britain’s Next Prime Minister Is Still in Thrall to the Empire

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/opinion/truss-uk-prime-minister.html

    For a former Lib Dem, republican Remainer that's quite a turn around!

    The NYT seems to remain convinced that the Leave vote reflected some sort of latent British desire to bring back the slave trade and annex Bangladesh.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,555
    Ghedebrav said:

    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    One of the many weird things about the New York Times' vendetta against the UK is that, at the moment at least, London is so much more vibrant than New York

    https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1567055450151034881

    Honestly, London has become significantly less vibrant and more identikit over the last decade. Leaving aside the superrich level, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (among others) offer a much better night out, especially mid-week when most of Zone One closes at 10pm or earlier.

    I've not been to NYC for a decade so can't speak fairly to a comparison.
    A ludicrous remark

    London is so enormous and SO diverse

    Thirty years ago if you talked about “a night out” in London you meant Soho and Covent Garden. This summer Soho has been rammed, exuberant and super noisy - people making up for Covid - through the week. But yes it has changed. The sex industry has almost gone and been replaced by gay culture, tons of good new restaurants and members clubs. Is that decline? Not sure

    But more importantly there are now multiple areas where you go for a good night out. Camden, Shoreditch, Angel, Hackney, Peckham, Brixton, Notting Hill, Chelsea, the new King’s Cross and more. Even Canary Wharf

    And they are all completely different. Grungey or glitzy. Studenty or artsy. Touristy or local. Historic or new

    London has problems. As do many world cities right now. But a lack of diversity or vibrancy is not one of them
    I speak as I find - I've not lived in London since 2009 but am down there (barring the plague years) once or twice a month. I've not been out in Soho for ages but kind of wrote it off after a few expensive and dull nights in the mid-2010s; if it's reviving a bit: good.

    Coal drops and that around KX is fine, I guess but more shops than anything (my kids love the fountains though); it's interesting that these little plazas of gentrification - with a the same small bouji chains - are popping up in a lot of neighbourhoods - Finsbury park, Elephant (yeah zone one, but barely) etc. In some cases, I can't complain - Elephant probably a case in point. But it feels more to me like homogenisation than anything.
    London has become significantly less homogenous since covid. A load of chain places shut down - good - and the councils could only fill them by dropping rents - allowing small indy outfits to take over. An improvement

    Check Charlotte St. That WAS in danger of being somewhat homogenised. Now it’s all independent new restaurants and bars again, and much better

    One cultural change is that kids don’t do half as much drinking or drugging. You may be noticing a bit of that, but that’s a global phenomenon. And london still manages to be notably hedonistic. More than any city I know, in fact. With the possible exception of New Orleans (but that’s sui generis)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,555
    LDLF said:

    The NYT's latest "hot take":

    Britain’s Next Prime Minister Is Still in Thrall to the Empire

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/opinion/truss-uk-prime-minister.html

    For a former Lib Dem, republican Remainer that's quite a turn around!

    The NYT seems to remain convinced that the Leave vote reflected some sort of latent British desire to bring back the slave trade and annex Bangladesh.

    The colonisation of the NYT by the British Remainer mindset is one of the strangest evolutions in journalism

    Frankly, if I was a NYT reader in America I’d be somewhat bored of this neurosis by now
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,913
    edited September 6

    The NYT's latest "hot take":

    Britain’s Next Prime Minister Is Still in Thrall to the Empire

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/opinion/truss-uk-prime-minister.html

    For a former Lib Dem, republican Remainer that's quite a turn around!

    The main argument there seems to be Truss is heir to Enoch Powell as well as Thatcher, not only taking on a hard line on immigration and taking on the EU and Putin but also slashing the state and taxes and red tape and setting the market free. Instead the author argues she should be putting a cap on energy bills, increasing tax on profits and pushing state investment
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,913
    edited September 6
    Boris has now officially seen the Queen at Balmoral and resigned as PM. So for a while we are now PM less until Truss arrives with executive power in the hands of the Queen until then who is head of government as well as head of state until she appoints a new PM to act as head of her government
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,913
    edited September 6

    Priti Patel and Frost are out too! Maybe if Rees Mogg isn't in perhaps I might even think there is a chance for this new government.

    With Boris going and if as expected Truss appoints Kwarteng Chancellor, Braverman Home Secretary and Cleverly Foreign Sec there will be no white male in the top jobs in government for the first time ever. Also showing the ludicrous nature of the NYT Enoch Powell comparison
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,749

    OllyT said:

    Apologies for using the site for a personal issue. We have a problem. We have arrived in France and can't make calls/texts from our mobile. It is an iPhone on a Vodafone pay-as-you -go contract. The settings seem fine and there is a healthy balance on the account. We were in France/Italy for 3 weeks in June, no problems. I'd be eternally grateful if any tech savvy PBer could suggest anything that might help out.

    Did you buy a Roaming Extra? The web site says:-

    How do Pay as you go European Roaming Extras work?
    ... big snip...
    You can only make calls, send texts or use data in Zone B destinations by purchasing a European Roaming Extra.

    https://www.vodafone.co.uk/mobile/global-roaming
    Thanks to you and Nick Palmer for the suggestions. I will look at the Zone B issue - what confuses me is that there was no problem when I last used my phone in France 8 weeks ago!
This discussion has been closed.