More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Sky News:
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
The statement actually said that they hadn't ruled out anything, but there was no evidence which suggested extra terrestrial origin.
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Sky News:
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
The statement actually said that they hadn't ruled out anything, but there was no evidence which suggested extra terrestrial origin.
The most exciting thing you will ever hear from a ‘Pentagon spokesman’ or a ‘White House source’ on this issue is: ‘we don’t rule anything out’
Imagine if they said the opposite - ‘we have evidence this is of non human origins’ or ‘this technology appears to be extra-terrestrial’ - even the mildest positive hint would be globally explosive. Could set off worldwide panic, stock market meltdowns, even war
So no one will ever say that, unless they have to. And if they have to it will sure come from the President, probably in concert with other major world leaders - China, UK, Russia, Germany, France - so as to frame it in the calmest possible way and avoid a trillion heart attacks
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
Almost everyone has a house whether it's rented or not. Swiss home ownership rates are much lower than Romanian rates; it wouldn't be obscene to transform Romania into Switzerland, and this hints that owning a house doesn't make you a lord of the manor.
There are a few reasons you may want to own a house: avoid semi-regular moves, do long-lasting works like some kinds of gardening, use the leverage to borrow against future earnings, and above all to grab a big tax shelter: the zero tax rate on their housing spend (whereas private rents are taxed). This leads to somewhat of a premium on average, after subtracting the tax wedge from rent. On the other hand, millions of people are stuck if and when prices dip, and their investment portfolios are exposed to local house prices rather than a broad swathe of the national or global economy.
Given the relatively low level of mortgages, and the recent mini-boom in house prices before the current very small correction, I think the number under threat from a bigger correction in house prices is relatively small.
If they went down by 20%, that is only going to take prices back to 2020 levels.
That's true, but two things to add are first, that it tends to have a concentrated effect in certain kinds of household - young family-formers who got mortgages recently, and who may be most prone to move around in normal times for jobs and for more space - and second, that falls of 20% are an event to expect with some reasonable probability when rates rise like this. In Sweden, for instance, prices fell almost 15% in nine months and are still falling; some in Germany expect the same over nine months; the UK drop by contrast has been 6% over six months.
Yep. One thing that may be different here is that empty homes are punished very heavily, so we have low slack in the market. In my area you can end up paying 2x or 3x Council Tax on an empty property.
Example from total numbers. UK has the same population as France within 1%.
France has 37 million dwellings; UK has 28-29 million.
France also has almost 3 times the land area of the UK
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Sky News:
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
The statement actually said that they hadn't ruled out anything, but there was no evidence which suggested extra terrestrial origin.
The most exciting thing you will ever hear from a ‘Pentagon spokesman’ or a ‘White House source’ on this issue is: ‘we don’t rule anything out’
Imagine if they said the opposite - ‘we have evidence this is of non human origins’ or ‘this technology appears to be extra-terrestrial’ - even the mildest positive hint would be globally explosive. Could set off worldwide panic, stock market meltdowns, even war
So no one will ever say that, unless they have to. And if they have to it will sure come from the President, probably in concert with other major world leaders - China, UK, Russia, Germany, France - so as to frame it in the calmest possible way and avoid a trillion heart attacks
When we find out who's playing silly buggers with these balloons, they should also be charged with the unnecessary increase in Leon's apocalyptic warnings.
These people are the only people other than successful suicide bombers who deserve the death penalty.
Well that’s a Darwin Award write-up ready to go. But who the hell was the machine operator, who presumably knew that you don’t turn the damn thing on with any metal near it?
He has probably written off the MRI machine too. Hope the hospital sue his estate.
I was warned multiple times before I was put in one. "Any prison tattoos?".
Well that’s a Darwin Award write-up ready to go. But who the hell was the machine operator, who presumably knew that you don’t turn the damn thing on with any metal near it?
He has probably written off the MRI machine too. Hope the hospital sue his estate.
I was warned multiple times before I was put in one. "Any prison tattoos?".
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Sky News:
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
The statement actually said that they hadn't ruled out anything, but there was no evidence which suggested extra terrestrial origin.
The most exciting thing you will ever hear from a ‘Pentagon spokesman’ or a ‘White House source’ on this issue is: ‘we don’t rule anything out’
Imagine if they said the opposite - ‘we have evidence this is of non human origins’ or ‘this technology appears to be extra-terrestrial’ - even the mildest positive hint would be globally explosive. Could set off worldwide panic, stock market meltdowns, even war
So no one will ever say that, unless they have to. And if they have to it will sure come from the President, probably in concert with other major world leaders - China, UK, Russia, Germany, France - so as to frame it in the calmest possible way and avoid a trillion heart attacks
When we find out who's playing silly buggers with these balloons, they should also be charged with the unnecessary increase in Leon's apocalyptic warnings.
These people are the only people other than successful suicide bombers who deserve the death penalty.
Leon’s just excited about a whole new market for his books.
As with so many of our public services we seem to contrive very little bang for our bucks, literally in this case. Why are our public sector organisations so incredibly inefficient and cash hungry? We really need to find out.
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Sky News:
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
The statement actually said that they hadn't ruled out anything, but there was no evidence which suggested extra terrestrial origin.
The most exciting thing you will ever hear from a ‘Pentagon spokesman’ or a ‘White House source’ on this issue is: ‘we don’t rule anything out’
Imagine if they said the opposite - ‘we have evidence this is of non human origins’ or ‘this technology appears to be extra-terrestrial’ - even the mildest positive hint would be globally explosive. Could set off worldwide panic, stock market meltdowns, even war
So no one will ever say that, unless they have to. And if they have to it will sure come from the President, probably in concert with other major world leaders - China, UK, Russia, Germany, France - so as to frame it in the calmest possible way and avoid a trillion heart attacks
Don’t worry, it’s not alien. It’ll be be Chinese or Russian balloons or drones - although there was a rumour that one of the balloons was actually Sweedish, and had gone all the way over Russia before ending up in American airspace over Alaska.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
Almost everyone has a house whether it's rented or not. Swiss home ownership rates are much lower than Romanian rates; it wouldn't be obscene to transform Romania into Switzerland, and this hints that owning a house doesn't make you a lord of the manor.
There are a few reasons you may want to own a house: avoid semi-regular moves, do long-lasting works like some kinds of gardening, use the leverage to borrow against future earnings, and above all to grab a big tax shelter: the zero tax rate on their housing spend (whereas private rents are taxed). This leads to somewhat of a premium on average, after subtracting the tax wedge from rent. On the other hand, millions of people are stuck if and when prices dip, and their investment portfolios are exposed to local house prices rather than a broad swathe of the national or global economy.
Given the relatively low level of mortgages, and the recent mini-boom in house prices before the current very small correction, I think the number under threat from a bigger correction in house prices is relatively small.
If they went down by 20%, that is only going to take prices back to 2020 levels.
That's true, but two things to add are first, that it tends to have a concentrated effect in certain kinds of household - young family-formers who got mortgages recently, and who may be most prone to move around in normal times for jobs and for more space - and second, that falls of 20% are an event to expect with some reasonable probability when rates rise like this. In Sweden, for instance, prices fell almost 15% in nine months and are still falling; some in Germany expect the same over nine months; the UK drop by contrast has been 6% over six months.
Yep. One thing that may be different here is that empty homes are punished very heavily, so we have low slack in the market. In my area you can end up paying 2x or 3x Council Tax on an empty property.
Example from total numbers. UK has the same population as France within 1%.
France has 37 million dwellings; UK has 28-29 million.
France also has almost 3 times the land area of the UK
Land are is Completely irrelevant - ideally you need 1 dwelling 1.x to 2 people and we have t got that hence house or ices and rents are sky high.
And that’s obvious because in areas where house prices are built without much complaint house prices haven’t changed much over the years as supply matches demand,
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
Almost everyone has a house whether it's rented or not. Swiss home ownership rates are much lower than Romanian rates; it wouldn't be obscene to transform Romania into Switzerland, and this hints that owning a house doesn't make you a lord of the manor.
There are a few reasons you may want to own a house: avoid semi-regular moves, do long-lasting works like some kinds of gardening, use the leverage to borrow against future earnings, and above all to grab a big tax shelter: the zero tax rate on their housing spend (whereas private rents are taxed). This leads to somewhat of a premium on average, after subtracting the tax wedge from rent. On the other hand, millions of people are stuck if and when prices dip, and their investment portfolios are exposed to local house prices rather than a broad swathe of the national or global economy.
Given the relatively low level of mortgages, and the recent mini-boom in house prices before the current very small correction, I think the number under threat from a bigger correction in house prices is relatively small.
If they went down by 20%, that is only going to take prices back to 2020 levels.
That's true, but two things to add are first, that it tends to have a concentrated effect in certain kinds of household - young family-formers who got mortgages recently, and who may be most prone to move around in normal times for jobs and for more space - and second, that falls of 20% are an event to expect with some reasonable probability when rates rise like this. In Sweden, for instance, prices fell almost 15% in nine months and are still falling; some in Germany expect the same over nine months; the UK drop by contrast has been 6% over six months.
Yep. One thing that may be different here is that empty homes are punished very heavily, so we have low slack in the market. In my area you can end up paying 2x or 3x Council Tax on an empty property.
Example from total numbers. UK has the same population as France within 1%.
France has 37 million dwellings; UK has 28-29 million.
France also has almost 3 times the land area of the UK
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Sky News:
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
The statement actually said that they hadn't ruled out anything, but there was no evidence which suggested extra terrestrial origin.
The most exciting thing you will ever hear from a ‘Pentagon spokesman’ or a ‘White House source’ on this issue is: ‘we don’t rule anything out’
Imagine if they said the opposite - ‘we have evidence this is of non human origins’ or ‘this technology appears to be extra-terrestrial’ - even the mildest positive hint would be globally explosive. Could set off worldwide panic, stock market meltdowns, even war
So no one will ever say that, unless they have to. And if they have to it will sure come from the President, probably in concert with other major world leaders - China, UK, Russia, Germany, France - so as to frame it in the calmest possible way and avoid a trillion heart attacks
Don’t worry, it’s not alien. It’ll be be Chinese or Russian balloons or drones - although there was a rumour that one of the balloons was actually Sweedish, and had gone all the way over Russia before ending up in American airspace over Alaska.
Ami I worried? No. I’m eating mango and sipping a singha beer
Do I think this is aliens? Again, no, in this instance - almost certainly not. It’s a classic Cold War ufo flap. Very similar to what went down in the 1950s. The same psychology. It’s surely balloons and drones and a dash of paranoia
(I am less certain about other aspects of the recent ufo kerfuffles)
I am merely pointing out that the Psychology of Disclosure means any underlings will be extremely tight-lipped. If we ever get big news it will either come from on high, or, if uncontrolled, from non governmental sources entirely
Time to be a bit more realistic about our capacities...? Scrap vanity aircraft carriers and invest the money elsewhere.
Fucking around with continuously changing priorties is one of the reasons we are in this mess. You can't really bin £6 billion worth of ships with three years to go until Full Operating Capability.
PoW seems to have scrapped herself though. I wouldn't be surprised if she stays at Rosyth at 'extended readiness' until QE needs to go in dry dock.
“The day after leaving the White House, Kushner created a company that he transformed months later into a private equity firm with $2 billion from a sovereign wealth fund chaired by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.” https://twitter.com/MrDanZak/status/1624776699253514246
Our politicians are comparative amateurs at this lark.
It does sound like the cash for Kushner came from the Saudis though. The problem with the corruption in the Conservative Party is that the cash routed to their spiv mates is OUR cash.
The giveaway point is that even when the corruptly awarded contracts deliver either unusable PPE or nothing, the cash remains with the spiv. Meanwhile the actual companies offering actual usable PPE were ignored.
At which point does the government start seeking prosecutions? Oh yeah, never mind...
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
I’m not going to challenge your maths.
But why on earth shouldn’t older generations spend their money as they see fit. If they want to they are fully within their rights to “piss it away” in your rather moralistic phrase rather than pass it on. If my parents were to do that I would just hope that they really enjoyed the process.
THE MINISTER behind Scotland’s deposit return scheme has admitted that a damning review of the policy did not speak to a single expert operating DRS schemes in other countries.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
I’m not going to challenge your maths.
But why on earth shouldn’t older generations spend their money as they see fit. If they want to they are fully within their rights to “piss it away” in your rather moralistic phrase rather than pass it on. If my parents were to do that I would just hope that they really enjoyed the process.
“The day after leaving the White House, Kushner created a company that he transformed months later into a private equity firm with $2 billion from a sovereign wealth fund chaired by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.” https://twitter.com/MrDanZak/status/1624776699253514246
Our politicians are comparative amateurs at this lark.
Bravo, Nicola. Single handedly destroying Indy for a decade, with one sweep of her unusually hairy hand
It's very funny.
It also is a strategic check on Woke, so rather brilliantly she has managed to do what 12 years of Conservative government have failed to do.
Yes, I confess I also find it amusing
She wouldn’t call a referendum now even if she had the chance. She’d lose. What, then, is left for her to do? Is her government running Scotland so well it deserves another five years in power?
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
Governments everywhere seem to all be in trouble at the moment. No-one is doing anything radical except for racking up debt and treading water, hoping something turns up soon.
Sturgeon’s turnaround has been quite uniquely fantastic though - she’s gone from hero to zero faster than Liz Truss, and has chosen the wierdest of hills on which to die.
Before anyone gets too giddy, thats a poll with a sudden drop in people saying Yes, and a fat 25% of don't knows. A chunk of whom would revert back to yes if it was actually put to a vote.
This is how the SNP do so well. Crowing people who detest their very existence overreact to events and pronounce "they are finished". They are not. Sadly.
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Whilst 1 metre is tiny, the energy involved increased rapidly with diameter. The Chelyabinsk meteor was 18 metres across and weighed an estimated 9,100 tons, and caused not a little damage. The Tunguska event was an estimated 50–60 metres across and caused widespread devastation.
“The day after leaving the White House, Kushner created a company that he transformed months later into a private equity firm with $2 billion from a sovereign wealth fund chaired by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.” https://twitter.com/MrDanZak/status/1624776699253514246
Our politicians are comparative amateurs at this lark.
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Whilst 1 metre is tiny, the energy involved increased rapidly with diameter. The Chelyabinsk meteor was 18 metres across and weighed an estimated 9,100 tons, and caused not a little damage. The Tunguska event was an estimated 50–60 metres across and caused widespread devastation.
“The day after leaving the White House, Kushner created a company that he transformed months later into a private equity firm with $2 billion from a sovereign wealth fund chaired by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.” https://twitter.com/MrDanZak/status/1624776699253514246
Our politicians are comparative amateurs at this lark.
My goodness, Yes is now even below the 45% it got in 2014 before Brexit on just 44%!
Maybe Salmond is right and Sturgeon's gender recognition obsession is destroying the independence movement in Scotland
Salmond is an oaf and a creep, and overfull of vanity
He’s also a gifted and astute politician, highly intelligent (and also an excellent speaker, still)
He was absolutely right in his summary of Sturgeon’s idiocy. When we look back at this era I reckon Salmond will be seen as much the greater of the two big SNP leaders, the one who came closest (tho both are talented)
As with so many of our public services we seem to contrive very little bang for our bucks, literally in this case. Why are our public sector organisations so incredibly inefficient and cash hungry? We really need to find out.
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
When they consider somebody else more likely to deliver independence.
At the moment, there isn't anyone obviously able to do so. Salmond is finished. Swinney is, well. Cross is a bit green still. The Greens are even more 'well' than John Swinney. Robertson doesn't seem to have the same heft in Edinburgh he had in Westminster.
Of course, at some point they may decide to roll the dice anyway but nobody has ever got rich betting on Sturgeon's failure.
There is hope. Murdoch’s tabloids are struggling badly in the online environment.
’News Corp's job cuts cast a shadow over the future of its newspapers’
News Corporation is cutting its staff by 5% globally… after its news media division recorded a second-quarter earnings decline of 47%.
“Eternal” factors… include the performance of the tabloid newspapers that have played a pivotal role in the development of the organisation. It casts a large shadow over the organisation’s future direction and structure.
It is reasonable to suppose that his attachment to newspapers – one colleague has referred to them as his “favourite toys” – is grounded in his experience that they give him power.
He has used that power to wring concessions out of prime ministers to the benefit of his businesses, and used the profits those concessions engendered to accumulate more power.
Perhaps the most egregious example was Margaret Thatcher’s decision as Britain’s prime minister to bypass the country’s Monopolies and Mergers Commission and approve his takeover of The Times and Sunday Times in 1981, after Murdoch’s mass-circulation Sun newspaper had supported her to the hilt in the election of 1979.
There is hope. Murdoch’s tabloids are struggling badly in the online environment.
’News Corp's job cuts cast a shadow over the future of its newspapers’
News Corporation is cutting its staff by 5% globally… after its news media division recorded a second-quarter earnings decline of 47%.
“Eternal” factors… include the performance of the tabloid newspapers that have played a pivotal role in the development of the organisation. It casts a large shadow over the organisation’s future direction and structure.
It is reasonable to suppose that his attachment to newspapers – one colleague has referred to them as his “favourite toys” – is grounded in his experience that they give him power.
He has used that power to wring concessions out of prime ministers to the benefit of his businesses, and used the profits those concessions engendered to accumulate more power.
Perhaps the most egregious example was Margaret Thatcher’s decision as Britain’s prime minister to bypass the country’s Monopolies and Mergers Commission and approve his takeover of The Times and Sunday Times in 1981, after Murdoch’s mass-circulation Sun newspaper had supported her to the hilt in the election of 1979.
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
Governments everywhere seem to all be in trouble at the moment. No-one is doing anything radical except for racking up debt and treading water, hoping something turns up soon.
Sturgeon’s turnaround has been quite uniquely fantastic though - she’s gone from hero to zero faster than Liz Truss, and has chosen the wierdest of hills on which to die.
To be fair, it is slower than Liz Truss, who lasted only 45 days from kissing hands at Balmoral to announcing her resignation (she remained Prime Minister for a few more days during the leadership election). And about a week of that was spent in stasis for HMQ's funeral.
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
When they consider somebody else more likely to deliver independence.
At the moment, there isn't anyone obviously able to do so. Salmond is finished. Swinney is, well. Cross is a bit green still. The Greens are even more 'well' than John Swinney. Robertson doesn't seem to have the same heft in Edinburgh he had in Westminster.
Of course, at some point they may decide to roll the dice anyway but nobody has ever got rich betting on Sturgeon's failure.
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
When they consider somebody else more likely to deliver independence.
At the moment, there isn't anyone obviously able to do so. Salmond is finished. Swinney is, well. Cross is a bit green still. The Greens are even more 'well' than John Swinney. Robertson doesn't seem to have the same heft in Edinburgh he had in Westminster.
Of course, at some point they may decide to roll the dice anyway but nobody has ever got rich betting on Sturgeon's failure.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
That's not a reason in itself. Populations increase, but actions can be taken to ensure sufficient housing and other amenities are provided.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
We have also (by "we," I refer to Government flailing around) managed to do our damndest to discourage people from wanting to support any building by pissing all over them when they do.
I've probably mentioned it before, but in my local area, we tried one of these Neighbourhood Development Plans. Basically, calling out on whether people were honest with the "yes, but infrastructure," and "we want the right houses in the right places."
They were requested to have a 20-25% increase in total housing. It was explained that if they wanted their children to actually be able to afford anywhere in the local area, this supply and demand equation had to be resolved.
They came back with a plan for a 30% increase. In locations where there was suitable greenfield land (usually unused for anything else), and with requests for the promised infrastructure. And a push for 2-3 bedroomed houses, as we were short of those, making the rungs of the housing ladder very far apart for those trying to get on it.
It passed a local referendum with well over 90% of the vote.
Infrastructure has been a bastard to get hold of ever since; there are minimal enforcement powers to compel developers to provide what was promised. They can ride roughshod over it, and national legislation gets in the way of trying to enforce.
The two-three bedroomed houses provision was accepted, written into the Local Plan, but then completely ignored. Developers can simply appeal to the Inspector and get any rejection on those grounds overturned.
Controlling where the houses went turned out to be bullshit as well. Yes, you get those 30% in those places, but developers can merrily throw up more in other places. Attempts to reject those get overturned by the Inspector.
So you get scads of unaffordable (to the locals children trying to buy) 4-5 bedroomed houses all over the place without any local control, without the infrastructure. Their children still can't afford to buy anywhere local, the green areas they wanted to preserve vanish, and the roads, surgeries, sewers, and recreation facilities all clog up.
They've rather swung against more development. And feel they were taken for fools. Frankly, I find it hard to blame anyone for that. I rather feel the same when I try to fight their case and get pissed on by the developers going to appeal and winning, or ignoring attempts at enforcement.
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
Governments everywhere seem to all be in trouble at the moment. No-one is doing anything radical except for racking up debt and treading water, hoping something turns up soon.
Sturgeon’s turnaround has been quite uniquely fantastic though - she’s gone from hero to zero faster than Liz Truss, and has chosen the wierdest of hills on which to die.
To be fair, it is slower than Liz Truss, who lasted only 45 days from kissing hands at Balmoral to announcing her resignation (she remained Prime Minister for a few more days during the leadership election). And about a week of that was spent in stasis for HMQ's funeral.
They’re not a million miles apart. The Scottish gender bill was passed the last day before Christmas, and the decision to block it was only announced on 16th Jan, just four weeks ago.
That article posted by Max contains a complaint about a studio apartment, listed at £2,895 pcm, which contains a sink on top of the toilet cistern, a TV you can’t watch, and a sofa cum pull down bed.
Even if it is in Bayswater, this is fucking mental.
The photo doesn't show a sink-on-cistern -- that's on top of a narrow cabinet, you can tell by the handle (you can get that kind of space-saving sink-and-cabinet unit from most DIY/plumbing places; admittedly they're more suited to loos than being a main bathroom sink). Also IME the sunk-on-cistern design (popular for loos in Japan) doesn't have a tap, they just run when the loo is flushed and are intended for hand-washing only.
Indy is off the table for now. The sooner the SNP realize this the better for them
Their best bet now is to ditch Sturgeon and the Woke bollocks, get a new leader (Forbes?) actually come up with some decent policies for Scotland, govern Scotland demonstrably well for five-ten years, and slowly rebuild support for Yes THAT way - practical, sensible, careful
Then they could win the next Sindyref in the 2030s
The fascinating thing about Sturgeon's troubles is that it likely pre-empts what Sunak has to come. The perception is that her government is obsessed by a non-issue. Whilst people are focused on the stuff that actually effects them the government is wasting time and energy on something that does not.
Sunak has the same problem. A list of 5 focus areas which he says our the people's issues but are not. Tell people what their problems are and get it wrong and it shows how out of touch you are.
I still expect nippie to stay in post. There is no obvious replacement, and if she moves on to focus on issues that people care about, this gets left behind her. Sunak can't make the same pivot, because the "people's issues" on his list are Tory issues. The party won't let him.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
However some give money to their families all the time. I am always helping my daughter, gave her a large deposit for a substantial property that is better than my own , help her so she can have horses , holidays for the family , etc etc. You should not always judge people by your own family Max , I am sure there are a lot more like me.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
That's not a reason in itself. Populations increase, but actions can be taken to ensure sufficient housing and other amenities are provided.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
We have also (by "we," I refer to Government flailing around) managed to do our damndest to discourage people from wanting to support any building by pissing all over them when they do.
I've probably mentioned it before, but in my local area, we tried one of these Neighbourhood Development Plans. Basically, calling out on whether people were honest with the "yes, but infrastructure," and "we want the right houses in the right places."
They were requested to have a 20-25% increase in total housing. It was explained that if they wanted their children to actually be able to afford anywhere in the local area, this supply and demand equation had to be resolved.
They came back with a plan for a 30% increase. In locations where there was suitable greenfield land (usually unused for anything else), and with requests for the promised infrastructure. And a push for 2-3 bedroomed houses, as we were short of those, making the rungs of the housing ladder very far apart for those trying to get on it.
It passed a local referendum with well over 90% of the vote.
Infrastructure has been a bastard to get hold of ever since; there are minimal enforcement powers to compel developers to provide what was promised. They can ride roughshod over it, and national legislation gets in the way of trying to enforce.
The two-three bedroomed houses provision was accepted, written into the Local Plan, but then completely ignored. Developers can simply appeal to the Inspector and get any rejection on those grounds overturned.
Controlling where the houses went turned out to be bullshit as well. Yes, you get those 30% in those places, but developers can merrily throw up more in other places. Attempts to reject those get overturned by the Inspector.
So you get scads of unaffordable (to the locals children trying to buy) 4-5 bedroomed houses all over the place without any local control, without the infrastructure. Their children still can't afford to buy anywhere local, the green areas they wanted to preserve vanish, and the roads, surgeries, sewers, and recreation facilities all clog up.
They've rather swung against more development. And feel they were taken for fools. Frankly, I find it hard to blame anyone for that. I rather feel the same when I try to fight their case and get pissed on by the developers going to appeal and winning, or ignoring attempts at enforcement.
To add to that, all the interlocking thicket of regulation has actually done is to drive out individual housebuilders, small developers, and non-professionals who want to do something positive. All the hoops to jump through (many of which have actually some legitimate rationale, but the application is tortuous) mean that the professional big developers have the regulatory know-how and staff set up to do it all (well enough to take the piss), but individuals and small companies often have a complete nightmare (and the funding levels at risk can mess up individuals and small companies but get taken in stride by the big companies).
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Whilst 1 metre is tiny, the energy involved increased rapidly with diameter. The Chelyabinsk meteor was 18 metres across and weighed an estimated 9,100 tons, and caused not a little damage. The Tunguska event was an estimated 50–60 metres across and caused widespread devastation.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
However some give money to their families all the time. I am always helping my daughter, gave her a large deposit for a substantial property that is better than my own , help her so she can have horses , holidays for the family , etc etc. You should not always judge people by your own family Max , I am sure there are a lot more like me.
Well done to your daughter on choosing to be born to wealthy parents!
This ties in with my belief, not widely held here, that a lot of voters vote SNP to stick up for Scotland within the UK set up, NOT because those voters actually want independence.
The fascinating thing about Sturgeon's troubles is that it likely pre-empts what Sunak has to come. The perception is that her government is obsessed by a non-issue. Whilst people are focused on the stuff that actually effects them the government is wasting time and energy on something that does not.
Sunak has the same problem. A list of 5 focus areas which he says our the people's issues but are not. Tell people what their problems are and get it wrong and it shows how out of touch you are.
I still expect nippie to stay in post. There is no obvious replacement, and if she moves on to focus on issues that people care about, this gets left behind her. Sunak can't make the same pivot, because the "people's issues" on his list are Tory issues. The party won't let him.
But why would Nits continue to support her if 1. She’s not gonna deliver a new referendum and therefore 2. She’s certainly not going to deliver Indy (lol) and 3 her last best idea - a de facto election/referendum is scorned by Scots voters
Surely at some point the hardcore Indy-now types will peel off in anger while the moderate civic Nats will think Enough, she’s got no more ideas and this SNP government is a bit rubbish
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
As with so many of our public services we seem to contrive very little bang for our bucks, literally in this case. Why are our public sector organisations so incredibly inefficient and cash hungry? We really need to find out.
Decades of Tory defence cuts.
Its not the cuts, its what we cut. We still seem to have a Whitehall organisation capable of running a world wide empire which we seem to have misplaced. So we have more admirals than ships, more generals than brigades, more Air Marshalls than operating aircraft. No doubt these are all good people who have dedicated their lives to our defence but the reality is that there is nothing for them to manage or deploy. The current army doesn't need more than 2-3 generals in total and perhaps 2 admirals. The rest, and their staffs, need to go.
This ties in with my belief, not widely held here, that a lot of voters vote SNP to stick up for Scotland within the UK set up, NOT because those voters actually want independence.
Definitely some truth in that. Quite a common phenomenon indeed - seen elsewhere
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
An SNP minister has suggested setting up a “Yes Party” to contest the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence.
Ivan McKee is the latest senior party figure to have tried to change Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to force the constitutional issue.
The first minister plans to try and start exit talks with the UK if more than half of the electorate vote for pro-independence parties at the general election. The SNP is set to debate the issue.
Critics of the proposal include Stewart McDonald, the Glasgow South MP, Alex Neil, the former health secretary, and Angus MacNeil, the Western Isles MP who wants a snap Holyrood election to act as the de facto vote.
This ties in with my belief, not widely held here, that a lot of voters vote SNP to stick up for Scotland within the UK set up, NOT because those voters actually want independence.
Definitely some truth in that. Quite a common phenomenon indeed - seen elsewhere
Before she took maternity leave last year, Forbes intimated that her concerns about the Scottish government’s gender-recognition reforms, first revealed in 2019, had not changed. “I’m not sure we’ve managed to achieve what I hoped we might, which was a more intelligent and informed and fair discussion that allowed people to express their views without being shut down.
“This is an issue that’s bigger than a political bubble. It’s an issue that mums and dads ask me about in relation to their children or their schools. I think a lot of people feel disenfranchised from the discussion and that does not lend itself to making good law.” Indeed, after weeks of headlines about trans sex offenders being placed in the women’s prison estate, today’s poll suggests 60 per cent think Sturgeon’s plans would pose a safety risk in women-only spaces.
The fascinating thing about Sturgeon's troubles is that it likely pre-empts what Sunak has to come. The perception is that her government is obsessed by a non-issue. Whilst people are focused on the stuff that actually effects them the government is wasting time and energy on something that does not.
Sunak has the same problem. A list of 5 focus areas which he says our the people's issues but are not. Tell people what their problems are and get it wrong and it shows how out of touch you are.
I still expect nippie to stay in post. There is no obvious replacement, and if she moves on to focus on issues that people care about, this gets left behind her. Sunak can't make the same pivot, because the "people's issues" on his list are Tory issues. The party won't let him.
But why would Nits continue to support her if 1. She’s not gonna deliver a new referendum and therefore 2. She’s certainly not going to deliver Indy (lol) and 3 her last best idea - a de facto election/referendum is scorned by Scots voters
Surely at some point the hardcore Indy-now types will peel off in anger while the moderate civic Nats will think Enough, she’s got no more ideas and this SNP government is a bit rubbish
Am I missing something, as a non-Scot?
The hardcore already defected to Alba. A tiny minority. You were crowing above about that poll, yet 25% are don't know. As No has just dropped we know that a good chunk of those are Yes but annoyed with the SNP so would revert to Yes if if came to it.
So whilst she is wounded she isn't in that much trouble. There isn't a ready replacement who can step in, she has what they see as an excellent track record both in government and as a national leader, and I think you're all getting giddy because you want it to be true.
I want it to be true. But I also have to live here and dabble in local politics. They're still strong...
As with so many of our public services we seem to contrive very little bang for our bucks, literally in this case. Why are our public sector organisations so incredibly inefficient and cash hungry? We really need to find out.
Decades of Tory defence cuts.
Its not the cuts, its what we cut. We still seem to have a Whitehall organisation capable of running a world wide empire which we seem to have misplaced. So we have more admirals than ships, more generals than brigades, more Air Marshalls than operating aircraft. No doubt these are all good people who have dedicated their lives to our defence but the reality is that there is nothing for them to manage or deploy. The current army doesn't need more than 2-3 generals in total and perhaps 2 admirals. The rest, and their staffs, need to go.
No, it's the cuts. You can sack as many admirals as you like but it won't add up to a single frigate.
As with so many of our public services we seem to contrive very little bang for our bucks, literally in this case. Why are our public sector organisations so incredibly inefficient and cash hungry? We really need to find out.
Decades of Tory defence cuts.
Its not the cuts, its what we cut. We still seem to have a Whitehall organisation capable of running a world wide empire which we seem to have misplaced. So we have more admirals than ships, more generals than brigades, more Air Marshalls than operating aircraft. No doubt these are all good people who have dedicated their lives to our defence but the reality is that there is nothing for them to manage or deploy. The current army doesn't need more than 2-3 generals in total and perhaps 2 admirals. The rest, and their staffs, need to go.
India used to be run with a civil service of 1200 afaicr. So I don't think we can blame the Empire.
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
Some of us already have. However, most of the really bad policies are Green policies. She needs to turn on them if she wants to get her own supporters back.
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Sky News:
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
The statement actually said that they hadn't ruled out anything, but there was no evidence which suggested extra terrestrial origin.
The most exciting thing you will ever hear from a ‘Pentagon spokesman’ or a ‘White House source’ on this issue is: ‘we don’t rule anything out’
Imagine if they said the opposite - ‘we have evidence this is of non human origins’ or ‘this technology appears to be extra-terrestrial’ - even the mildest positive hint would be globally explosive. Could set off worldwide panic, stock market meltdowns, even war
So no one will ever say that, unless they have to. And if they have to it will sure come from the President, probably in concert with other major world leaders - China, UK, Russia, Germany, France - so as to frame it in the calmest possible way and avoid a trillion heart attacks
So when they establish that they're something perfectly mundane, will it shut you up with your incessant bandwagon-jumping on every passing conspiracy theory?
THE MINISTER behind Scotland’s deposit return scheme has admitted that a damning review of the policy did not speak to a single expert operating DRS schemes in other countries.
Trans-rights versus Women's rights was a sleeping dog of an issue. Nicola's mistake was to waken it. Terrible politics, or was she determined to rub their faces in it. I'd go for the former.
The fascinating thing about Sturgeon's troubles is that it likely pre-empts what Sunak has to come. The perception is that her government is obsessed by a non-issue. Whilst people are focused on the stuff that actually effects them the government is wasting time and energy on something that does not.
Sunak has the same problem. A list of 5 focus areas which he says our the people's issues but are not. Tell people what their problems are and get it wrong and it shows how out of touch you are.
I still expect nippie to stay in post. There is no obvious replacement, and if she moves on to focus on issues that people care about, this gets left behind her. Sunak can't make the same pivot, because the "people's issues" on his list are Tory issues. The party won't let him.
But why would Nits continue to support her if 1. She’s not gonna deliver a new referendum and therefore 2. She’s certainly not going to deliver Indy (lol) and 3 her last best idea - a de facto election/referendum is scorned by Scots voters
Surely at some point the hardcore Indy-now types will peel off in anger while the moderate civic Nats will think Enough, she’s got no more ideas and this SNP government is a bit rubbish
Am I missing something, as a non-Scot?
The hardcore already defected to Alba. A tiny minority. You were crowing above about that poll, yet 25% are don't know. As No has just dropped we know that a good chunk of those are Yes but annoyed with the SNP so would revert to Yes if if came to it.
So whilst she is wounded she isn't in that much trouble. There isn't a ready replacement who can step in, she has what they see as an excellent track record both in government and as a national leader, and I think you're all getting giddy because you want it to be true.
I want it to be true. But I also have to live here and dabble in local politics. They're still strong...
No, I’m not getting giddy. I asked a sincere question - ‘am I missing something?’ - because domestic Scottish politics is often opaque to me. I hear what you’re saying, and thank you for the insight
On the other hand I’ve been saying since 2019 that there won’t be a new indyref until the 2030s, at least. Westminster will use the ‘generation’ argument, and I think I’m being proven right on that
The SNP should reform - and aim itself at that new target
The fascinating thing about Sturgeon's troubles is that it likely pre-empts what Sunak has to come. The perception is that her government is obsessed by a non-issue. Whilst people are focused on the stuff that actually effects them the government is wasting time and energy on something that does not.
Sunak has the same problem. A list of 5 focus areas which he says our the people's issues but are not. Tell people what their problems are and get it wrong and it shows how out of touch you are.
I still expect nippie to stay in post. There is no obvious replacement, and if she moves on to focus on issues that people care about, this gets left behind her. Sunak can't make the same pivot, because the "people's issues" on his list are Tory issues. The party won't let him.
But why would Nits continue to support her if 1. She’s not gonna deliver a new referendum and therefore 2. She’s certainly not going to deliver Indy (lol) and 3 her last best idea - a de facto election/referendum is scorned by Scots voters
Surely at some point the hardcore Indy-now types will peel off in anger while the moderate civic Nats will think Enough, she’s got no more ideas and this SNP government is a bit rubbish
Am I missing something, as a non-Scot?
Sadly yes. The lack of a credible alternative government.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
We don’t comment every other day on women murdered by men either - nearly half domestic. I hope at least we can agree that male violence against women is a problem.
An SNP minister has suggested setting up a “Yes Party” to contest the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence.
Ivan McKee is the latest senior party figure to have tried to change Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to force the constitutional issue.
The first minister plans to try and start exit talks with the UK if more than half of the electorate vote for pro-independence parties at the general election. The SNP is set to debate the issue.
Critics of the proposal include Stewart McDonald, the Glasgow South MP, Alex Neil, the former health secretary, and Angus MacNeil, the Western Isles MP who wants a snap Holyrood election to act as the de facto vote.
That's a ballsy idea. Dissolve the government, put it to the people. "A vote for the SNP is an explicit vote for independence".
OK so what would that mean? If re-elected to government would they say "we have our mandate" and immediately press the UK to start the divorce? And when the UK says no would they secede?
I think Sturgeon was bluffing when she said the next election would be a mandate for independence. Because whilst that issue would be important, Scottish voters aren't as insane as the NI Unionist voters who put The Union above all other issues.
A "this is a vote on independence" campaign would be harassed for details about how an independent Scotland would run every and any policy area. And the SNP wouldn't be able to answer.
Doing that mid-term, when you're giving up a clear mandate and majority to government, would as I said be ballsy...
This ties in with my belief, not widely held here, that a lot of voters vote SNP to stick up for Scotland within the UK set up, NOT because those voters actually want independence.
Definitely some truth in that. Quite a common phenomenon indeed - seen elsewhere
The effect would be hard to see through polling, because some would answer as pro-Indy because menacing Westminster is part of the overall motivation. They might typically poll as pro-indy but putting indy low on their priority list. But an election being used as a de facto referendum and potentially acted upon would really alarm these voters.
Trans-rights versus Women's rights was a sleeping dog of an issue. Nicola's mistake was to waken it. Terrible politics, or was she determined to rub their faces in it. I'd go for the former.
A mixture of personal conviction - she really is Proud and Woke and’ pro trans activist’ - plus a chance, as she saw it, to stoke further division with Westminster. In her blinkered world it must have appeared as ‘win win’. Reality had other ideas for her: lose-lose
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
When they consider somebody else more likely to deliver independence.
At the moment, there isn't anyone obviously able to do so. Salmond is finished. Swinney is, well. Cross is a bit green still. The Greens are even more 'well' than John Swinney. Robertson doesn't seem to have the same heft in Edinburgh he had in Westminster.
Of course, at some point they may decide to roll the dice anyway but nobody has ever got rich betting on Sturgeon's failure.
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
That's not a reason in itself. Populations increase, but actions can be taken to ensure sufficient housing and other amenities are provided.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
We have also (by "we," I refer to Government flailing around) managed to do our damndest to discourage people from wanting to support any building by pissing all over them when they do.
I've probably mentioned it before, but in my local area, we tried one of these Neighbourhood Development Plans. Basically, calling out on whether people were honest with the "yes, but infrastructure," and "we want the right houses in the right places."
They were requested to have a 20-25% increase in total housing. It was explained that if they wanted their children to actually be able to afford anywhere in the local area, this supply and demand equation had to be resolved.
They came back with a plan for a 30% increase. In locations where there was suitable greenfield land (usually unused for anything else), and with requests for the promised infrastructure. And a push for 2-3 bedroomed houses, as we were short of those, making the rungs of the housing ladder very far apart for those trying to get on it.
It passed a local referendum with well over 90% of the vote.
Infrastructure has been a bastard to get hold of ever since; there are minimal enforcement powers to compel developers to provide what was promised. They can ride roughshod over it, and national legislation gets in the way of trying to enforce.
The two-three bedroomed houses provision was accepted, written into the Local Plan, but then completely ignored. Developers can simply appeal to the Inspector and get any rejection on those grounds overturned.
Controlling where the houses went turned out to be bullshit as well. Yes, you get those 30% in those places, but developers can merrily throw up more in other places. Attempts to reject those get overturned by the Inspector.
So you get scads of unaffordable (to the locals children trying to buy) 4-5 bedroomed houses all over the place without any local control, without the infrastructure. Their children still can't afford to buy anywhere local, the green areas they wanted to preserve vanish, and the roads, surgeries, sewers, and recreation facilities all clog up.
They've rather swung against more development. And feel they were taken for fools. Frankly, I find it hard to blame anyone for that. I rather feel the same when I try to fight their case and get pissed on by the developers going to appeal and winning, or ignoring attempts at enforcement.
The Inspector has to approve the Local Plan. If a Local Plan did not get the Inspector's approval and the Inspector's amendments were not accepted then Developers will be more likely to win on appeal
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
Indy is off the table for now. The sooner the SNP realize this the better for them
Their best bet now is to ditch Sturgeon and the Woke bollocks, get a new leader (Forbes?) actually come up with some decent policies for Scotland, govern Scotland demonstrably well for five-ten years, and slowly rebuild support for Yes THAT way - practical, sensible, careful
Then they could win the next Sindyref in the 2030s
You mean, like the policies that were successful under Salmond’s leadership from 2007 to 2014? Many people forget that with only 48 seats out of 129, the SNP could only govern with the support of other parties, most commonly the Tories.
This ties in with my belief, not widely held here, that a lot of voters vote SNP to stick up for Scotland within the UK set up, NOT because those voters actually want independence.
Definitely some truth in that. Quite a common phenomenon indeed - seen elsewhere
The effect would be hard to see through polling, because some would answer as pro-Indy because menacing Westminster is part of the overall motivation. They might typically poll as pro-indy but putting indy low on their priority list. But an election being used as a de facto referendum and potentially acted upon would really alarm these voters.
I used to vote UKIP for the EU Parliament even when I was pro-remain (which I was, on balance, up until Cameron’s failed renegotiation). I voted UKIP to express my dissatisfaction with the EU as a whole, to send a signal, to have someone stand up for Blighty in Strasbourg, and to pressure Tories to be more aggressive with Brussels
When Cameron came back empty handed, my long held and innate euroscepticism finally hardened into Leave
Comments
Imagine if they said the opposite - ‘we have evidence this is of non human origins’ or ‘this technology appears to be extra-terrestrial’ - even the mildest positive hint would be globally explosive. Could set off worldwide panic, stock market meltdowns, even war
So no one will ever say that, unless they have to. And if they have to it will sure come from the President, probably in concert with other major world leaders - China, UK, Russia, Germany, France - so as to frame it in the calmest possible way and avoid a trillion heart attacks
These people are the only people other than successful suicide bombers who deserve the death penalty.
I was warned multiple times before I was put in one. "Any prison tattoos?".
And that’s obvious because in areas where house prices are built without much complaint house prices haven’t changed much over the years as supply matches demand,
https://twitter.com/CGMeifangZhang/status/1624929028992864259
1000 km from the epicentre.
Do I think this is aliens? Again, no, in this instance - almost certainly not. It’s a classic Cold War ufo flap. Very similar to what went down in the 1950s. The same psychology. It’s surely balloons and drones and a dash of paranoia
(I am less certain about other aspects of the recent ufo kerfuffles)
I am merely pointing out that the Psychology of Disclosure means any underlings will be extremely tight-lipped. If we ever get big news it will either come from on high, or, if uncontrolled, from non governmental sources entirely
PoW seems to have scrapped herself though. I wouldn't be surprised if she stays at Rosyth at 'extended readiness' until QE needs to go in dry dock.
https://twitter.com/holyrooddaily/status/1625042339638153218
If only he knew… 😂
The giveaway point is that even when the corruptly awarded contracts deliver either unusable PPE or nothing, the cash remains with the spiv. Meanwhile the actual companies offering actual usable PPE were ignored.
At which point does the government start seeking prosecutions? Oh yeah, never mind...
But why on earth shouldn’t older generations spend their money as they see fit. If they want to they are fully within their rights to “piss it away” in your rather moralistic phrase rather than pass it on. If my parents were to do that I would just hope that they really enjoyed the process.
You have an extraordinary sense of entitlement.
She’s fucking it all up and she’s nearly run out of road. She is visibly bereft of ideas
It also is a strategic check on Woke, so rather brilliantly she has managed to do what 12 years of Conservative government have failed to do.
You need a gentle sideways/slightly downwards drift until income multiples are more reasonable
THE MINISTER behind Scotland’s deposit return scheme has admitted that a damning review of the policy did not speak to a single expert operating DRS schemes in other countries.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23316424.damning-bottle-scheme-review-not-get-views-country/
Over £17 billion is given annually by parents in their 50s in the UK to their children in their 20s and 30s, especially to help with deposits to buy a first property and weddings
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11742893/Bank-Mum-Dad-Parents-fuelling-inequality-17billion-handed-children-annually.html
She wouldn’t call a referendum now even if she had the chance. She’d lose. What, then, is left for her to do? Is her government running Scotland so well it deserves another five years in power?
Maybe Salmond is right and Sturgeon's gender recognition obsession is destroying the independence movement in Scotland
Sturgeon’s turnaround has been quite uniquely fantastic though - she’s gone from hero to zero faster than Liz Truss, and has chosen the wierdest of hills on which to die.
This is how the SNP do so well. Crowing people who detest their very existence overreact to events and pronounce "they are finished". They are not. Sadly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
POLL: Should the next General Election be considered a de facto referendum on Scottish independence:
NO: 67%
YES: 21%
Don’t know: 12%
Via @LordAshcroft, On 26 Jan-3 Feb.
[Scottish voters polled only]
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1625051077107220480
He’s also a gifted and astute politician, highly intelligent (and also an excellent speaker, still)
He was absolutely right in his summary of Sturgeon’s idiocy. When we look back at this era I reckon Salmond will be seen as much the greater of the two big SNP leaders, the one who came closest (tho both are talented)
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,could-it-be-that-a-party-claiming-to-be-uniquely-in-tune-with-scottish-people-is-losing-touch
At the moment, there isn't anyone obviously able to do so. Salmond is finished. Swinney is, well. Cross is a bit green still. The Greens are even more 'well' than John Swinney. Robertson doesn't seem to have the same heft in Edinburgh he had in Westminster.
Of course, at some point they may decide to roll the dice anyway but nobody has ever got rich betting on Sturgeon's failure.
This Brexit jape is going awfully well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Forbes
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,lord-ashcroft-poll-reveals-gulf-between-scottish-government-and-voters-on-independence-and-gender-reforms
Note to self, do not read cricket reports while commenting on Scottish politics.
I made the same mistake with Ian Blackford. I kept calling him Ian Blackwell.
I've probably mentioned it before, but in my local area, we tried one of these Neighbourhood Development Plans. Basically, calling out on whether people were honest with the "yes, but infrastructure," and "we want the right houses in the right places."
They were requested to have a 20-25% increase in total housing. It was explained that if they wanted their children to actually be able to afford anywhere in the local area, this supply and demand equation had to be resolved.
They came back with a plan for a 30% increase. In locations where there was suitable greenfield land (usually unused for anything else), and with requests for the promised infrastructure. And a push for 2-3 bedroomed houses, as we were short of those, making the rungs of the housing ladder very far apart for those trying to get on it.
It passed a local referendum with well over 90% of the vote.
Infrastructure has been a bastard to get hold of ever since; there are minimal enforcement powers to compel developers to provide what was promised. They can ride roughshod over it, and national legislation gets in the way of trying to enforce.
The two-three bedroomed houses provision was accepted, written into the Local Plan, but then completely ignored. Developers can simply appeal to the Inspector and get any rejection on those grounds overturned.
Controlling where the houses went turned out to be bullshit as well. Yes, you get those 30% in those places, but developers can merrily throw up more in other places. Attempts to reject those get overturned by the Inspector.
So you get scads of unaffordable (to the locals children trying to buy) 4-5 bedroomed houses all over the place without any local control, without the infrastructure. Their children still can't afford to buy anywhere local, the green areas they wanted to preserve vanish, and the roads, surgeries, sewers, and recreation facilities all clog up.
They've rather swung against more development. And feel they were taken for fools. Frankly, I find it hard to blame anyone for that. I rather feel the same when I try to fight their case and get pissed on by the developers going to appeal and winning, or ignoring attempts at enforcement.
Their best bet now is to ditch Sturgeon and the Woke bollocks, get a new leader (Forbes?) actually come up with some decent policies for Scotland, govern Scotland demonstrably well for five-ten years, and slowly rebuild support for Yes THAT way - practical, sensible, careful
Then they could win the next Sindyref in the 2030s
Sunak has the same problem. A list of 5 focus areas which he says our the people's issues but are not. Tell people what their problems are and get it wrong and it shows how out of touch you are.
I still expect nippie to stay in post. There is no obvious replacement, and if she moves on to focus on issues that people care about, this gets left behind her. Sunak can't make the same pivot, because the "people's issues" on his list are Tory issues. The party won't let him.
You should not always judge people by your own family Max , I am sure there are a lot more like me.
I SAW IT!!! With my own eyes.
Surely at some point the hardcore Indy-now types will peel off in anger while the moderate civic Nats will think Enough, she’s got no more ideas and this SNP government is a bit rubbish
Am I missing something, as a non-Scot?
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
Ivan McKee is the latest senior party figure to have tried to change Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to force the constitutional issue.
The first minister plans to try and start exit talks with the UK if more than half of the electorate vote for pro-independence parties at the general election. The SNP is set to debate the issue.
Critics of the proposal include Stewart McDonald, the Glasgow South MP, Alex Neil, the former health secretary, and Angus MacNeil, the Western Isles MP who wants a snap Holyrood election to act as the de facto vote.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/yes-party-a-radical-way-to-win-independence-claims-minister-zv03vslqz
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/12/us-military-shoots-down-fourth-flying-object-over-north-american-airspace
Before she took maternity leave last year, Forbes intimated that her concerns about the Scottish government’s gender-recognition reforms, first revealed in 2019, had not changed. “I’m not sure we’ve managed to achieve what I hoped we might, which was a more intelligent and informed and fair discussion that allowed people to express their views without being shut down.
“This is an issue that’s bigger than a political bubble. It’s an issue that mums and dads ask me about in relation to their children or their schools. I think a lot of people feel disenfranchised from the discussion and that does not lend itself to making good law.” Indeed, after weeks of headlines about trans sex offenders being placed in the women’s prison estate, today’s poll suggests 60 per cent think Sturgeon’s plans would pose a safety risk in women-only spaces.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/190b7b70-aa1f-11ed-9813-2dc4880907f5
So whilst she is wounded she isn't in that much trouble. There isn't a ready replacement who can step in, she has what they see as an excellent track record both in government and as a national leader, and I think you're all getting giddy because you want it to be true.
I want it to be true. But I also have to live here and dabble in local politics. They're still strong...
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
On the other hand I’ve been saying since 2019 that there won’t be a new indyref until the 2030s, at least. Westminster will use the ‘generation’ argument, and I think I’m being proven right on that
The SNP should reform - and aim itself at that new target
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers.
2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans.
3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field.
4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
We don’t comment every other day on women murdered by men either - nearly half domestic. I hope at least we can agree that male violence against women is a problem.
OK so what would that mean? If re-elected to government would they say "we have our mandate" and immediately press the UK to start the divorce? And when the UK says no would they secede?
I think Sturgeon was bluffing when she said the next election would be a mandate for independence. Because whilst that issue would be important, Scottish voters aren't as insane as the NI Unionist voters who put The Union above all other issues.
A "this is a vote on independence" campaign would be harassed for details about how an independent Scotland would run every and any policy area. And the SNP wouldn't be able to answer.
Doing that mid-term, when you're giving up a clear mandate and majority to government, would as I said be ballsy...
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
…
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1624825833427804160?s=20&t=YryiTmzoFRBHqpBWsQ7klw
When Cameron came back empty handed, my long held and innate euroscepticism finally hardened into Leave