There is a lot of scepticism over this - normally any video of a drone attack is poor quality CCTV while this video is suspiciously high-quality for just happening to point in the right direction at 2am.
Also, Ukraine is currently experiencing a degree of success with drone attacks on oil storage facilities, military airfields, other sabotage of railways, etc, which this seems designed to distract from.
Feels like a false flag to me. "A fearless Putin also defies drone attacks from the Kyiv Nazis, just as the brave Russian soldier in the trenches of Donetsk" style of thing.
Yes.
It appears to be a multicopter and therefore must have been launched within a few miles of the Kremlin.
It doesn't appear to be carrying much in the way of actual explosive - perhaps a Molotov cocktail?
Doesn't smell right.
Plenty of the sabotage stuff in Russia seems to be on that scale.
If you think about it - a drone like that will fit in a bag, folded up. The only suspicious bit is the explosive device, which can be hung under it at the last moment.
Somewhere, within a mile or 2 of the Kremlin, unfold the drone, clip the bomb on and launch. Could well be on a preprogrammed course, rather than manually controlled. So walk away immediately.
You could even book a hotel room, set the drone up inside, open the window and leave. X hours later the drone launches. You could be in another country having an Old Fashioned in a decent bar.
Why do you think drones have security forces world wide all panicked and upset?
Well, yes, I have a self built one (about 10 years old now) which would do all that. These days you could probably use image recognition for the final "delivery", too.
No wonder they are bringing in Remote ID / Aeroscope etc for consumer drones and trying to get people to use ones under 250g (which I also have - the technology has advanced an amazing amount recently).
On the other hand, I don't see the gain for the Ukrainians. It just gives more excuses for the Russians to posture (if they needed any).
The Sun's Political Editor Harry Cole speculates the coronation will cost the UK "into the hundreds of billions", but suggests that the exposure it will get is "worth it's weight in gold."
Just seen Sunak vs Starmer at PMQs and what an embarrassment Sunak is as Prime Minister. King of the NIMBYs banging on about giving "local control" to stop housing, when we have a housing crisis.
If I hadn't already decided I won't vote Tory tomorrow, that would be a clincher.
Cheshire and Amersham was a disappointment for seeing the Lib Dems win based on a disreputable NIMBY campaign, but the Tories have gone wholeheartedly to the dark side.
I'm never voting for them again, until they become the party of aspiration again - which I can't ever see happening under Sunak.
It will happen, but it's going to be a long slog. The Conservatives are prisoners of their electorate, who are now overwhelmingly retired homeowners who see no reason for any more development, thank you. I don't see how the Conservatives move to a different coalition without a purgative spell in opposition.
Give him his due, Starmer is at least making "getting it" noises, though the devil will be in the details.
Yep. More of that and I might actually vote Labour next time, despite having thought I'd never do so again after Brown trashed the economy with his deficit spending.
If Starmer can come up with a plan that involves getting stuff done, like construction, to move the economy instead of just throwing taxpayers money at every problem (like Brown) or just shutting up shop and managing decline (like Sunak) then he will deserve a term in Downing Street.
Not holding my breath though.
Concreting over the Green Belt would be electoral poison for Labour. For example, in my old home town of Crawley (a must win for Labour at the next GE) a plan for a vast housing estate on the Ifield golf course was met with local fury and organized protests. If Sir Keir goes for 'Build, baby, build' then he's an idiot. On this issue HYUFD is right, right and right again!
Indeed, we need some new housing but it should be focused on brownbelt land first. Any government which tries to concrete over the greenbelt will be hugely unpopular
Ah yes, that fictional canard "the brownbelt" again.
There's no such thing. The countries population has increased by 20% in a generation, there simply isn't unused land going idle to fit those houses into, the only realistic way you can increase by 20% your population is to increase by 20% the land being used. 🤦♂️
Which would be an almost insignificant eating into greenfield land, but treating all green land as holy places never to be touched is the problem. Typically by people who themselves live in areas they'd consider green but their own house is an exception clearly as its already there.
Tighten immigration controls and that reduces pressure on the demand side too
No, it doesn't.
You could stop immigration overnight and all the housing problems that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
Unless you want to enforce mass-deportations, then everyone who lives here still needs a home to live in, and children who grow up whether children of people who migrated or not, will need a home of their own too.
This isn't actually true unless you also stop emigration and close the borders completely.
Emigration isn't of a scale to close the housing shortage.
Over half a million a year would make a considerable dent in it.
It'd take 20 years at that rate to get us back to the population we had when the housing system broke down and house prices exploded.
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
My wild 'prediction' is that Russia will descend into civil war, and various factions will defect to the Ukrainian side, ultimately leading to a consolidation of power in Kyiv. Ukraine will expand and become the next European superpower.
There is a lot of scepticism over this - normally any video of a drone attack is poor quality CCTV while this video is suspiciously high-quality for just happening to point in the right direction at 2am.
Also, Ukraine is currently experiencing a degree of success with drone attacks on oil storage facilities, military airfields, other sabotage of railways, etc, which this seems designed to distract from.
Feels like a false flag to me. "A fearless Putin also defies drone attacks from the Kyiv Nazis, just as the brave Russian soldier in the trenches of Donetsk" style of thing.
Yes.
It appears to be a multicopter and therefore must have been launched within a few miles of the Kremlin.
It doesn't appear to be carrying much in the way of actual explosive - perhaps a Molotov cocktail?
Doesn't smell right.
Plenty of the sabotage stuff in Russia seems to be on that scale.
If you think about it - a drone like that will fit in a bag, folded up. The only suspicious bit is the explosive device, which can be hung under it at the last moment.
Somewhere, within a mile or 2 of the Kremlin, unfold the drone, clip the bomb on and launch. Could well be on a preprogrammed course, rather than manually controlled. So walk away immediately.
You could even book a hotel room, set the drone up inside, open the window and leave. X hours later the drone launches. You could be in another country having an Old Fashioned in a decent bar.
Why do you think drones have security forces world wide all panicked and upset?
Well, yes, I have a self built one (about 10 years old now) which would do all that. These days you could probably use image recognition for the final "delivery", too.
No wonder they are bringing in Remote ID / Aeroscope etc for consumer drones and trying to get people to use ones under 250g (which I also have - the technology has advanced an amazing amount recently).
On the other hand, I don't see the gain for the Ukrainians. It just gives more excuses for the Russians to posture (if they needed any).
Blow the place up, or don't.
Cui bono, as always.
Ukraine have more important targets and are fighting for their survival, not engaged in this sort of game.
Putin has done the falseflag playbook and played on fear and victimhood for decades. Its what got him in, with the Chechens, and he's done it ever since.
F/w 24 - 28 April. Changes vs. 29 March - 2 April.
An absolute shellacking for CON on the way tomorrow if that prediction is right then...
Catastrophically low. Can't rule out 1000+ losses on those sort of numbers for Cons.
Yeah, if CON are polling 23% 1000+ councillors will be out of a job by Friday evening.
The only one saving grace for CON here is that Labour at 33% are no where near where they were in 1995 and 1996 when they were polling well above 40% in those local elections (especially 1995 which was complete oblivion for CON)
F/w 24 - 28 April. Changes vs. 29 March - 2 April.
An absolute shellacking for CON on the way tomorrow if that prediction is right then...
Catastrophically low. Can't rule out 1000+ losses on those sort of numbers for Cons.
Yeah, if CON are polling 23% 1000+ councillors will be out of a job by Friday evening.
The only one saving grace for CON here is that Labour at 33% are no where near where they were in 1995 and 1996 when they were polling well above 40% in those local elections (especially 1995 which was complete oblivion for CON)
From everything I have read / seen, I think the key metric is Labour getting a double digit lead in National Equivalent Voteshare in order to read across to a possible GE majority. 5-9% NEV lead then things are more finely balanced and hung parliament more likely closer to 5%. Going to be interesting.
The Sun's Political Editor Harry Cole speculates the coronation will cost the UK "into the hundreds of billions", but suggests that the exposure it will get is "worth it's weight in gold."
F/w 24 - 28 April. Changes vs. 29 March - 2 April.
An absolute shellacking for CON on the way tomorrow if that prediction is right then...
Catastrophically low. Can't rule out 1000+ losses on those sort of numbers for Cons.
Yeah, if CON are polling 23% 1000+ councillors will be out of a job by Friday evening.
The only one saving grace for CON here is that Labour at 33% are no where near where they were in 1995 and 1996 when they were polling well above 40% in those local elections (especially 1995 which was complete oblivion for CON)
Don't you think it's an unbelievable achievement that this bunch of crooks shysters and ne'er do wells might even now get 1-in-4 of the votes cast?
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
Acknowledging the impact on housing (including council hose provision) on schools, on healthcare would be a start. Not painting 'locals' as racist when the demography of their locality changes in a very small space of time. Being honest about how many people are coming each year and from where. Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met. Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
There is a lot of scepticism over this - normally any video of a drone attack is poor quality CCTV while this video is suspiciously high-quality for just happening to point in the right direction at 2am.
Also, Ukraine is currently experiencing a degree of success with drone attacks on oil storage facilities, military airfields, other sabotage of railways, etc, which this seems designed to distract from.
Feels like a false flag to me. "A fearless Putin also defies drone attacks from the Kyiv Nazis, just as the brave Russian soldier in the trenches of Donetsk" style of thing.
Were I a Muscovite, I don’t think I’d be reassured by the ability of Ukraine to attack my home with drones, even if the Kremlin were able to shoot one down. I don’t see how this counts as a propaganda win for Russia.
Does Putin want Muscovites to be reassured, or does he need them to be angry and scared so that he can mobilise another few hundred thousand bodies to man the trenches in Ukraine?
Also, if inhabitants of Sevastopol see that Moscow is also under drone attack, they might think there's little point in fleeing Crimea. As it is I'd think there were hundreds of better targets for a Ukrainian drone attack.
Or does he want a pretext for further escalation ?
That was my first thought, rightly or wrongly. I don't have the knowledge or understanding of war ops to judge how likely it is to be true.
Scrolling down from the tweet there is another flacid, dreary poster featuring a dreary slogan and a dreary Starmer. I am beginning to think that TSE is correct and boots-on against Sunak is a more effective method of campaigning.
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
Acknowledging the impact on housing (including council hose provision) on schools, on healthcare would be a start. Not painting 'locals' as racist when the demography of their locality changes in a very small space of time. Being honest about how many people are coming each year and from where. Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met. Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
In theory shouldn't the migrants should contain enough teachers, doctors, builders and general working people to generate extra taxes/housing/teaching/NHS resources ?
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
That it is a good thing and to be encouraged and is here to stay, and how can we make ourselves more welcome to the best and brightest, and how can we ensure enough homes etc are constructed for them as well as those who are already here?
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
Acknowledging the impact on housing (including council hose provision) on schools, on healthcare would be a start. Not painting 'locals' as racist when the demography of their locality changes in a very small space of time. Being honest about how many people are coming each year and from where. Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met. Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
Objecting to demographic changes is racism, if by demographics you mean the colour of people's skin.
Saying more houses, schools or whatever are needed is not.
We can discuss practical things like the number of schools or houses needed, that's a matter of practicality. The racial demographic mix of people in an area is not.
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
Acknowledging the impact on housing (including council hose provision) on schools, on healthcare would be a start. Not painting 'locals' as racist when the demography of their locality changes in a very small space of time. Being honest about how many people are coming each year and from where. Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met. Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
In theory shouldn't the migrants should contain enough teachers, doctors, builders and general working people to generate extra taxes/housing/teaching/NHS resources ?
A lack of builders isn't the constraint to housing. Its a lack of planning consent. We need more land dedicated to be turned into housing rather than farmland, and more intensive farming or imports to feed the country instead of 70% of a rather small and densely populated country being farmland and only 5% housing.
Make those ratios 69% and 6% and you could end the housing crisis.
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
Acknowledging the impact on housing (including council hose provision) on schools, on healthcare would be a start. Not painting 'locals' as racist when the demography of their locality changes in a very small space of time. Being honest about how many people are coming each year and from where. Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met. Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
In theory shouldn't the migrants should contain enough teachers, doctors, builders and general working people to generate extra taxes/housing/teaching/NHS resources ?
Maybe - does the data show that? This is the kind of discussion that needs to be held, without the sneer of xenophobia from certain sections.
Tucker Carlson January 7, 2021 — 04:18:04 PM UTC A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
Acknowledging the impact on housing (including council hose provision) on schools, on healthcare would be a start. Not painting 'locals' as racist when the demography of their locality changes in a very small space of time. Being honest about how many people are coming each year and from where. Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met. Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
Objecting to demographic changes is racism, if by demographics you mean the colour of people's skin.
Saying more houses, schools or whatever are needed is not.
We can discuss practical things like the number of schools or houses needed, that's a matter of practicality. The racial demographic mix of people in an area is not.
Not necessarily about race, more about culture. Impacts of huge immigration of people from different cultures can be hard. It could be that the local shops evolve from catering for existing inhabitants and focus more on the incomers. It could be that pubs close as there are no customers as different culture socialise in different ways. It could be the decline of the local sports teams as the incomers don't wish to play rugby/football/darts/cricket. It could be that many who move to the area don't have english as a first language, so the random chats on the street stop.
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
Acknowledging the impact on housing (including council hose provision) on schools, on healthcare would be a start. Not painting 'locals' as racist when the demography of their locality changes in a very small space of time. Being honest about how many people are coming each year and from where. Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met. Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
Objecting to demographic changes is racism, if by demographics you mean the colour of people's skin.
Saying more houses, schools or whatever are needed is not.
We can discuss practical things like the number of schools or houses needed, that's a matter of practicality. The racial demographic mix of people in an area is not.
Just seen Sunak vs Starmer at PMQs and what an embarrassment Sunak is as Prime Minister. King of the NIMBYs banging on about giving "local control" to stop housing, when we have a housing crisis.
If I hadn't already decided I won't vote Tory tomorrow, that would be a clincher.
Cheshire and Amersham was a disappointment for seeing the Lib Dems win based on a disreputable NIMBY campaign, but the Tories have gone wholeheartedly to the dark side.
I'm never voting for them again, until they become the party of aspiration again - which I can't ever see happening under Sunak.
It will happen, but it's going to be a long slog. The Conservatives are prisoners of their electorate, who are now overwhelmingly retired homeowners who see no reason for any more development, thank you. I don't see how the Conservatives move to a different coalition without a purgative spell in opposition.
Give him his due, Starmer is at least making "getting it" noises, though the devil will be in the details.
Yep. More of that and I might actually vote Labour next time, despite having thought I'd never do so again after Brown trashed the economy with his deficit spending.
If Starmer can come up with a plan that involves getting stuff done, like construction, to move the economy instead of just throwing taxpayers money at every problem (like Brown) or just shutting up shop and managing decline (like Sunak) then he will deserve a term in Downing Street.
Not holding my breath though.
Concreting over the Green Belt would be electoral poison for Labour. For example, in my old home town of Crawley (a must win for Labour at the next GE) a plan for a vast housing estate on the Ifield golf course was met with local fury and organized protests. If Sir Keir goes for 'Build, baby, build' then he's an idiot. On this issue HYUFD is right, right and right again!
Indeed, we need some new housing but it should be focused on brownbelt land first. Any government which tries to concrete over the greenbelt will be hugely unpopular
Ah yes, that fictional canard "the brownbelt" again.
There's no such thing. The countries population has increased by 20% in a generation, there simply isn't unused land going idle to fit those houses into, the only realistic way you can increase by 20% your population is to increase by 20% the land being used. 🤦♂️
Which would be an almost insignificant eating into greenfield land, but treating all green land as holy places never to be touched is the problem. Typically by people who themselves live in areas they'd consider green but their own house is an exception clearly as its already there.
Tighten immigration controls and that reduces pressure on the demand side too
No, it doesn't.
You could stop immigration overnight and all the housing problems that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
Unless you want to enforce mass-deportations, then everyone who lives here still needs a home to live in, and children who grow up whether children of people who migrated or not, will need a home of their own too.
This isn't actually true unless you also stop emigration and close the borders completely.
Emigration isn't of a scale to close the housing shortage.
Over half a million a year would make a considerable dent in it.
It'd take 20 years at that rate to get us back to the population we had when the housing system broke down and house prices exploded.
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
Except that it is not a human right to own a house. You see it as such, I guess, because you have either found it difficult to buy a house or maybe still have not. You have been quite brutal in your views on here on other matters (e.g. people catching covid, businesses going bust because of Brexit), so I will be brutal with you: The reality is that if you earn enough, you can still afford to buy, so rather than whinging about it Barty, work harder/smarter and afford a house. Alternatively you can rent a property and spend hours on here whinging about how unfair it all is.
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
Acknowledging the impact on housing (including council hose provision) on schools, on healthcare would be a start. Not painting 'locals' as racist when the demography of their locality changes in a very small space of time. Being honest about how many people are coming each year and from where. Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met. Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
Objecting to demographic changes is racism, if by demographics you mean the colour of people's skin.
Saying more houses, schools or whatever are needed is not.
We can discuss practical things like the number of schools or houses needed, that's a matter of practicality. The racial demographic mix of people in an area is not.
This is sophistry. Your first comment implies that it is legitimate to object to demographic changes as long as race isn't the deterimining factor, but then you say that it is purely a practical question.
Just seen Sunak vs Starmer at PMQs and what an embarrassment Sunak is as Prime Minister. King of the NIMBYs banging on about giving "local control" to stop housing, when we have a housing crisis.
If I hadn't already decided I won't vote Tory tomorrow, that would be a clincher.
Cheshire and Amersham was a disappointment for seeing the Lib Dems win based on a disreputable NIMBY campaign, but the Tories have gone wholeheartedly to the dark side.
I'm never voting for them again, until they become the party of aspiration again - which I can't ever see happening under Sunak.
It will happen, but it's going to be a long slog. The Conservatives are prisoners of their electorate, who are now overwhelmingly retired homeowners who see no reason for any more development, thank you. I don't see how the Conservatives move to a different coalition without a purgative spell in opposition.
Give him his due, Starmer is at least making "getting it" noises, though the devil will be in the details.
Yep. More of that and I might actually vote Labour next time, despite having thought I'd never do so again after Brown trashed the economy with his deficit spending.
If Starmer can come up with a plan that involves getting stuff done, like construction, to move the economy instead of just throwing taxpayers money at every problem (like Brown) or just shutting up shop and managing decline (like Sunak) then he will deserve a term in Downing Street.
Not holding my breath though.
Concreting over the Green Belt would be electoral poison for Labour. For example, in my old home town of Crawley (a must win for Labour at the next GE) a plan for a vast housing estate on the Ifield golf course was met with local fury and organized protests. If Sir Keir goes for 'Build, baby, build' then he's an idiot. On this issue HYUFD is right, right and right again!
Indeed, we need some new housing but it should be focused on brownbelt land first. Any government which tries to concrete over the greenbelt will be hugely unpopular
Ah yes, that fictional canard "the brownbelt" again.
There's no such thing. The countries population has increased by 20% in a generation, there simply isn't unused land going idle to fit those houses into, the only realistic way you can increase by 20% your population is to increase by 20% the land being used. 🤦♂️
Which would be an almost insignificant eating into greenfield land, but treating all green land as holy places never to be touched is the problem. Typically by people who themselves live in areas they'd consider green but their own house is an exception clearly as its already there.
Tighten immigration controls and that reduces pressure on the demand side too
No, it doesn't.
You could stop immigration overnight and all the housing problems that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
Unless you want to enforce mass-deportations, then everyone who lives here still needs a home to live in, and children who grow up whether children of people who migrated or not, will need a home of their own too.
This isn't actually true unless you also stop emigration and close the borders completely.
Emigration isn't of a scale to close the housing shortage.
Over half a million a year would make a considerable dent in it.
It'd take 20 years at that rate to get us back to the population we had when the housing system broke down and house prices exploded.
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
Except that it is not a human right to own a house. You see it as such, I guess, because you have either found it difficult to buy a house or maybe still have not. You have been quite brutal in your views on here on other matters (e.g. people catching covid, businesses going bust because of Brexit), so I will be brutal with you: The reality is that if you earn enough, you can still afford to buy, so rather than whinging about it Barty, work harder/smarter and afford a house. Alternatively you can rent a property and spend hours on here whinging about how unfair it all is.
There is a shorting of housing - rented and for sale.
It is racist to prevent more properties being built.
Just seen Sunak vs Starmer at PMQs and what an embarrassment Sunak is as Prime Minister. King of the NIMBYs banging on about giving "local control" to stop housing, when we have a housing crisis.
If I hadn't already decided I won't vote Tory tomorrow, that would be a clincher.
Cheshire and Amersham was a disappointment for seeing the Lib Dems win based on a disreputable NIMBY campaign, but the Tories have gone wholeheartedly to the dark side.
I'm never voting for them again, until they become the party of aspiration again - which I can't ever see happening under Sunak.
It will happen, but it's going to be a long slog. The Conservatives are prisoners of their electorate, who are now overwhelmingly retired homeowners who see no reason for any more development, thank you. I don't see how the Conservatives move to a different coalition without a purgative spell in opposition.
Give him his due, Starmer is at least making "getting it" noises, though the devil will be in the details.
Yep. More of that and I might actually vote Labour next time, despite having thought I'd never do so again after Brown trashed the economy with his deficit spending.
If Starmer can come up with a plan that involves getting stuff done, like construction, to move the economy instead of just throwing taxpayers money at every problem (like Brown) or just shutting up shop and managing decline (like Sunak) then he will deserve a term in Downing Street.
Not holding my breath though.
Concreting over the Green Belt would be electoral poison for Labour. For example, in my old home town of Crawley (a must win for Labour at the next GE) a plan for a vast housing estate on the Ifield golf course was met with local fury and organized protests. If Sir Keir goes for 'Build, baby, build' then he's an idiot. On this issue HYUFD is right, right and right again!
Indeed, we need some new housing but it should be focused on brownbelt land first. Any government which tries to concrete over the greenbelt will be hugely unpopular
Ah yes, that fictional canard "the brownbelt" again.
There's no such thing. The countries population has increased by 20% in a generation, there simply isn't unused land going idle to fit those houses into, the only realistic way you can increase by 20% your population is to increase by 20% the land being used. 🤦♂️
Which would be an almost insignificant eating into greenfield land, but treating all green land as holy places never to be touched is the problem. Typically by people who themselves live in areas they'd consider green but their own house is an exception clearly as its already there.
Tighten immigration controls and that reduces pressure on the demand side too
No, it doesn't.
You could stop immigration overnight and all the housing problems that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
Unless you want to enforce mass-deportations, then everyone who lives here still needs a home to live in, and children who grow up whether children of people who migrated or not, will need a home of their own too.
This isn't actually true unless you also stop emigration and close the borders completely.
Emigration isn't of a scale to close the housing shortage.
Over half a million a year would make a considerable dent in it.
It'd take 20 years at that rate to get us back to the population we had when the housing system broke down and house prices exploded.
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
Except that it is not a human right to own a house. You see it as such, I guess, because you have either found it difficult to buy a house or maybe still have not. You have been quite brutal in your views on here on other matters (e.g. people catching covid, businesses going bust because of Brexit), so I will be brutal with you: The reality is that if you earn enough, you can still afford to buy, so rather than whinging about it Barty, work harder/smarter and afford a house. Alternatively you can rent a property and spend hours on here whinging about how unfair it all is.
The rental market is even more of a mess, and for the same reasons. You presumably agree that it is at least a human right to live in a house, even if not to own one.
Just seen Sunak vs Starmer at PMQs and what an embarrassment Sunak is as Prime Minister. King of the NIMBYs banging on about giving "local control" to stop housing, when we have a housing crisis.
If I hadn't already decided I won't vote Tory tomorrow, that would be a clincher.
Cheshire and Amersham was a disappointment for seeing the Lib Dems win based on a disreputable NIMBY campaign, but the Tories have gone wholeheartedly to the dark side.
I'm never voting for them again, until they become the party of aspiration again - which I can't ever see happening under Sunak.
It will happen, but it's going to be a long slog. The Conservatives are prisoners of their electorate, who are now overwhelmingly retired homeowners who see no reason for any more development, thank you. I don't see how the Conservatives move to a different coalition without a purgative spell in opposition.
Give him his due, Starmer is at least making "getting it" noises, though the devil will be in the details.
Yep. More of that and I might actually vote Labour next time, despite having thought I'd never do so again after Brown trashed the economy with his deficit spending.
If Starmer can come up with a plan that involves getting stuff done, like construction, to move the economy instead of just throwing taxpayers money at every problem (like Brown) or just shutting up shop and managing decline (like Sunak) then he will deserve a term in Downing Street.
Not holding my breath though.
Concreting over the Green Belt would be electoral poison for Labour. For example, in my old home town of Crawley (a must win for Labour at the next GE) a plan for a vast housing estate on the Ifield golf course was met with local fury and organized protests. If Sir Keir goes for 'Build, baby, build' then he's an idiot. On this issue HYUFD is right, right and right again!
Indeed, we need some new housing but it should be focused on brownbelt land first. Any government which tries to concrete over the greenbelt will be hugely unpopular
Ah yes, that fictional canard "the brownbelt" again.
There's no such thing. The countries population has increased by 20% in a generation, there simply isn't unused land going idle to fit those houses into, the only realistic way you can increase by 20% your population is to increase by 20% the land being used. 🤦♂️
Which would be an almost insignificant eating into greenfield land, but treating all green land as holy places never to be touched is the problem. Typically by people who themselves live in areas they'd consider green but their own house is an exception clearly as its already there.
Tighten immigration controls and that reduces pressure on the demand side too
No, it doesn't.
You could stop immigration overnight and all the housing problems that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
Unless you want to enforce mass-deportations, then everyone who lives here still needs a home to live in, and children who grow up whether children of people who migrated or not, will need a home of their own too.
This isn't actually true unless you also stop emigration and close the borders completely.
Emigration isn't of a scale to close the housing shortage.
Over half a million a year would make a considerable dent in it.
It'd take 20 years at that rate to get us back to the population we had when the housing system broke down and house prices exploded.
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
Except that it is not a human right to own a house. You see it as such, I guess, because you have either found it difficult to buy a house or maybe still have not. You have been quite brutal in your views on here on other matters (e.g. people catching covid, businesses going bust because of Brexit), so I will be brutal with you: The reality is that if you earn enough, you can still afford to buy, so rather than whinging about it Barty, work harder/smarter and afford a house. Alternatively you can rent a property and spend hours on here whinging about how unfair it all is.
Um I don't think BartholomewRoberts is just talking about house prices he's talking about rents as well.
And the both issues boil down to a single point - the supply of housing needs to increase.
Tucker Carlson January 7, 2021 — 04:18:04 PM UTC A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
Perhaps he could consider applying that humanitarian logic to Ukraine where for over a year he's been delighting in seeing a group of Putin guys surrounding an entire country and attempting to beat the living shit out of it.
Just seen Sunak vs Starmer at PMQs and what an embarrassment Sunak is as Prime Minister. King of the NIMBYs banging on about giving "local control" to stop housing, when we have a housing crisis.
If I hadn't already decided I won't vote Tory tomorrow, that would be a clincher.
Cheshire and Amersham was a disappointment for seeing the Lib Dems win based on a disreputable NIMBY campaign, but the Tories have gone wholeheartedly to the dark side.
I'm never voting for them again, until they become the party of aspiration again - which I can't ever see happening under Sunak.
It will happen, but it's going to be a long slog. The Conservatives are prisoners of their electorate, who are now overwhelmingly retired homeowners who see no reason for any more development, thank you. I don't see how the Conservatives move to a different coalition without a purgative spell in opposition.
Give him his due, Starmer is at least making "getting it" noises, though the devil will be in the details.
Yep. More of that and I might actually vote Labour next time, despite having thought I'd never do so again after Brown trashed the economy with his deficit spending.
If Starmer can come up with a plan that involves getting stuff done, like construction, to move the economy instead of just throwing taxpayers money at every problem (like Brown) or just shutting up shop and managing decline (like Sunak) then he will deserve a term in Downing Street.
Not holding my breath though.
Concreting over the Green Belt would be electoral poison for Labour. For example, in my old home town of Crawley (a must win for Labour at the next GE) a plan for a vast housing estate on the Ifield golf course was met with local fury and organized protests. If Sir Keir goes for 'Build, baby, build' then he's an idiot. On this issue HYUFD is right, right and right again!
Indeed, we need some new housing but it should be focused on brownbelt land first. Any government which tries to concrete over the greenbelt will be hugely unpopular
Ah yes, that fictional canard "the brownbelt" again.
There's no such thing. The countries population has increased by 20% in a generation, there simply isn't unused land going idle to fit those houses into, the only realistic way you can increase by 20% your population is to increase by 20% the land being used. 🤦♂️
Which would be an almost insignificant eating into greenfield land, but treating all green land as holy places never to be touched is the problem. Typically by people who themselves live in areas they'd consider green but their own house is an exception clearly as its already there.
Tighten immigration controls and that reduces pressure on the demand side too
No, it doesn't.
You could stop immigration overnight and all the housing problems that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
Unless you want to enforce mass-deportations, then everyone who lives here still needs a home to live in, and children who grow up whether children of people who migrated or not, will need a home of their own too.
This isn't actually true unless you also stop emigration and close the borders completely.
Emigration isn't of a scale to close the housing shortage.
Over half a million a year would make a considerable dent in it.
It'd take 20 years at that rate to get us back to the population we had when the housing system broke down and house prices exploded.
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
Except that it is not a human right to own a house. You see it as such, I guess, because you have either found it difficult to buy a house or maybe still have not. You have been quite brutal in your views on here on other matters (e.g. people catching covid, businesses going bust because of Brexit), so I will be brutal with you: The reality is that if you earn enough, you can still afford to buy, so rather than whinging about it Barty, work harder/smarter and afford a house. Alternatively you can rent a property and spend hours on here whinging about how unfair it all is.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say - in an abstract sense - that it would be better if more people could afford a house. It's not a human right to own a house, obviously. But I'd prefer to see a UK in which the top 70% could afford to own a house than a UK in which that was only possible for the top 30%.
Has anyone mentioned yet that the landlord of the golliwog dolls pub has discovered it's very hard to sell beer if no-one is willing to provide you with beer. So they've handed the pub back to the lease company.
Just seen Sunak vs Starmer at PMQs and what an embarrassment Sunak is as Prime Minister. King of the NIMBYs banging on about giving "local control" to stop housing, when we have a housing crisis.
If I hadn't already decided I won't vote Tory tomorrow, that would be a clincher.
Cheshire and Amersham was a disappointment for seeing the Lib Dems win based on a disreputable NIMBY campaign, but the Tories have gone wholeheartedly to the dark side.
I'm never voting for them again, until they become the party of aspiration again - which I can't ever see happening under Sunak.
It will happen, but it's going to be a long slog. The Conservatives are prisoners of their electorate, who are now overwhelmingly retired homeowners who see no reason for any more development, thank you. I don't see how the Conservatives move to a different coalition without a purgative spell in opposition.
Give him his due, Starmer is at least making "getting it" noises, though the devil will be in the details.
Yep. More of that and I might actually vote Labour next time, despite having thought I'd never do so again after Brown trashed the economy with his deficit spending.
If Starmer can come up with a plan that involves getting stuff done, like construction, to move the economy instead of just throwing taxpayers money at every problem (like Brown) or just shutting up shop and managing decline (like Sunak) then he will deserve a term in Downing Street.
Not holding my breath though.
Concreting over the Green Belt would be electoral poison for Labour. For example, in my old home town of Crawley (a must win for Labour at the next GE) a plan for a vast housing estate on the Ifield golf course was met with local fury and organized protests. If Sir Keir goes for 'Build, baby, build' then he's an idiot. On this issue HYUFD is right, right and right again!
Indeed, we need some new housing but it should be focused on brownbelt land first. Any government which tries to concrete over the greenbelt will be hugely unpopular
Ah yes, that fictional canard "the brownbelt" again.
There's no such thing. The countries population has increased by 20% in a generation, there simply isn't unused land going idle to fit those houses into, the only realistic way you can increase by 20% your population is to increase by 20% the land being used. 🤦♂️
Which would be an almost insignificant eating into greenfield land, but treating all green land as holy places never to be touched is the problem. Typically by people who themselves live in areas they'd consider green but their own house is an exception clearly as its already there.
Tighten immigration controls and that reduces pressure on the demand side too
No, it doesn't.
You could stop immigration overnight and all the housing problems that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
Unless you want to enforce mass-deportations, then everyone who lives here still needs a home to live in, and children who grow up whether children of people who migrated or not, will need a home of their own too.
This isn't actually true unless you also stop emigration and close the borders completely.
Emigration isn't of a scale to close the housing shortage.
Over half a million a year would make a considerable dent in it.
It'd take 20 years at that rate to get us back to the population we had when the housing system broke down and house prices exploded.
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
Except that it is not a human right to own a house. You see it as such, I guess, because you have either found it difficult to buy a house or maybe still have not. You have been quite brutal in your views on here on other matters (e.g. people catching covid, businesses going bust because of Brexit), so I will be brutal with you: The reality is that if you earn enough, you can still afford to buy, so rather than whinging about it Barty, work harder/smarter and afford a house. Alternatively you can rent a property and spend hours on here whinging about how unfair it all is.
The rental market is even more of a mess, and for the same reasons. You presumably agree that it is at least a human right to live in a house, even if not to own one.
Though note that the word "house" is part of the problem. Too few people outside London are prepared to live in flats. I lived in flats for the first 13 years of adult life and it was perfectly fine.
Around where I'm currently sitting (in an office towerblock in Canary Wharf) they are erecting thousands of living units just like that: bish bash bosh. Huge skyscrapers, massive increase in capacity, with generally the infrastructure and services to go with them. Down where I live in Lewisham they've thrown up at least 10 huge new residential towerblocks around the station in a couple of years and they're still building. Aside from the occasional local campaign about flood risks from culverting the quaggy river there's scarcely any NIMBY activity. It shows what can be done, at density, in short order. And in Lewisham while hardly Hausmann's Paris it's a net improvement on the old aesthetics of the place.
Has anyone mentioned yet that the landlord of the golliwog dolls pub has discovered it's very hard to sell beer if no-one is willing to provide you with beer. So they've handed the pub back to the lease company.
Just seen Sunak vs Starmer at PMQs and what an embarrassment Sunak is as Prime Minister. King of the NIMBYs banging on about giving "local control" to stop housing, when we have a housing crisis.
If I hadn't already decided I won't vote Tory tomorrow, that would be a clincher.
Cheshire and Amersham was a disappointment for seeing the Lib Dems win based on a disreputable NIMBY campaign, but the Tories have gone wholeheartedly to the dark side.
I'm never voting for them again, until they become the party of aspiration again - which I can't ever see happening under Sunak.
It will happen, but it's going to be a long slog. The Conservatives are prisoners of their electorate, who are now overwhelmingly retired homeowners who see no reason for any more development, thank you. I don't see how the Conservatives move to a different coalition without a purgative spell in opposition.
Give him his due, Starmer is at least making "getting it" noises, though the devil will be in the details.
Yep. More of that and I might actually vote Labour next time, despite having thought I'd never do so again after Brown trashed the economy with his deficit spending.
If Starmer can come up with a plan that involves getting stuff done, like construction, to move the economy instead of just throwing taxpayers money at every problem (like Brown) or just shutting up shop and managing decline (like Sunak) then he will deserve a term in Downing Street.
Not holding my breath though.
Concreting over the Green Belt would be electoral poison for Labour. For example, in my old home town of Crawley (a must win for Labour at the next GE) a plan for a vast housing estate on the Ifield golf course was met with local fury and organized protests. If Sir Keir goes for 'Build, baby, build' then he's an idiot. On this issue HYUFD is right, right and right again!
Indeed, we need some new housing but it should be focused on brownbelt land first. Any government which tries to concrete over the greenbelt will be hugely unpopular
Ah yes, that fictional canard "the brownbelt" again.
There's no such thing. The countries population has increased by 20% in a generation, there simply isn't unused land going idle to fit those houses into, the only realistic way you can increase by 20% your population is to increase by 20% the land being used. 🤦♂️
Which would be an almost insignificant eating into greenfield land, but treating all green land as holy places never to be touched is the problem. Typically by people who themselves live in areas they'd consider green but their own house is an exception clearly as its already there.
Tighten immigration controls and that reduces pressure on the demand side too
No, it doesn't.
You could stop immigration overnight and all the housing problems that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
Unless you want to enforce mass-deportations, then everyone who lives here still needs a home to live in, and children who grow up whether children of people who migrated or not, will need a home of their own too.
This isn't actually true unless you also stop emigration and close the borders completely.
Emigration isn't of a scale to close the housing shortage.
Over half a million a year would make a considerable dent in it.
It'd take 20 years at that rate to get us back to the population we had when the housing system broke down and house prices exploded.
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
Except that it is not a human right to own a house. You see it as such, I guess, because you have either found it difficult to buy a house or maybe still have not. You have been quite brutal in your views on here on other matters (e.g. people catching covid, businesses going bust because of Brexit), so I will be brutal with you: The reality is that if you earn enough, you can still afford to buy, so rather than whinging about it Barty, work harder/smarter and afford a house. Alternatively you can rent a property and spend hours on here whinging about how unfair it all is.
Um I don't think BartholomewRoberts is just talking about house prices he's talking about rents as well.
I am treating Barty to a bit of his cold, unfeeling right wing medicine. I actually agree that the system needs some radical solutions. I just don't have sympathy for someone like Barty who normally suggests that anyone who complains needs to be told to pull their socks up or suck it up, as in the examples I gave.
The difficulty with housing is that parties of all stripes are (rightly) worried about creating conditions that cause a house price crash. Barty thinks this would be a wonderful thing, and whatever it did to the economy and individuals is just tough shit -the old suck it up lack of sympathy for which he is infamous. But, like with most of his views, people who actually understand these things disagree and understand that even muppets like Barty (who IIRC was a supporter of Trussconomics) will suffer significantly.
Has anyone mentioned yet that the landlord of the golliwog dolls pub has discovered it's very hard to sell beer if no-one is willing to provide you with beer. So they've handed the pub back to the lease company.
Considering that our major parties have been banging on relentlessly for decades on the subject, what bit of honest conversation is still to be had?
Acknowledging the impact on housing (including council hose provision) on schools, on healthcare would be a start. Not painting 'locals' as racist when the demography of their locality changes in a very small space of time. Being honest about how many people are coming each year and from where. Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met. Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
Objecting to demographic changes is racism, if by demographics you mean the colour of people's skin.
Saying more houses, schools or whatever are needed is not.
We can discuss practical things like the number of schools or houses needed, that's a matter of practicality. The racial demographic mix of people in an area is not.
Not necessarily about race, more about culture. Impacts of huge immigration of people from different cultures can be hard. It could be that the local shops evolve from catering for existing inhabitants and focus more on the incomers. It could be that pubs close as there are no customers as different culture socialise in different ways. It could be the decline of the local sports teams as the incomers don't wish to play rugby/football/darts/cricket. It could be that many who move to the area don't have english as a first language, so the random chats on the street stop.
Non of those are, I think, racist in themselves.
Yes, I agree. People almost don't notice if the people they interact with have a different skin colour but dress the same, speak the same, share the same references, etc. They notice quite a lot if the people they interact with dress differently, speak differently, etc - even if to all extents and purposes their skin tone is almost indistinguishable for their own.
Tucker Carlson January 7, 2021 — 04:18:04 PM UTC A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
Perhaps he could consider applying that humanitarian logic to Ukraine where for over a year he's been delighting in seeing a group of Putin guys surrounding an entire country and attempting to beat the living shit out of it.
Fucker Carlson is as much of a humanitarian, as I am a Zoroastrian.
His mealy-mouthed faux "humanitarianism" is maybe most disgusting thing re: this two-legged turd.
Has anyone mentioned yet that the landlord of the golliwog dolls pub has discovered it's very hard to sell beer if no-one is willing to provide you with beer. So they've handed the pub back to the lease company.
A late Savanta, with another due later today I guess.
Labour’s polling decline really does seem to have decoupled from the now-over Tory rise - which suggests there’s an issue with Labour itself, rather than the Tories just getting their act (a little bit) together.
F/w 24 - 28 April. Changes vs. 29 March - 2 April.
Misleading as in many areas there won't be an Independent candidate and the Independent votes will therefore go Tory
Why do you assume people voting independent will otherwise vote Tory if there isn't an independent. I voted independent last time, I'm not a Tory and I doubt that all the other 70% who did in defeating the Tory were either last time these seats were fought.
Though note that the word "house" is part of the problem. Too few people outside London are prepared to live in flats. I lived in flats for the first 13 years of adult life and it was perfectly fine.
I also lived in flats for many years. 50% of the time it was fine, but the other 50% it was a bit of a nightmare dealing with a freeholder who had no interest in doing anything beyond absolutely critical maintenance and who we had no leverage to persuade to care about one elderly building in their vast property portfolio.
I have no problems with the flat living experience itself - I do have issues with being so dependent on a commercial freeholder and with having to try to get everyone in the block to agree about improvements. At least with a house you control your own destiny wrt maintenance. Certainly after my flat owning experience I resolved never to buy leasehold again.
A late Savanta, with another due later today I guess.
Labour’s polling decline really does seem to have decoupled from the now-over Tory rise - which suggests there’s an issue with Labour itself, rather than the Tories just getting their act (a little bit) together.
Out of date poll, but nonetheless certainly some evidence of churn within the LLG vote in recent days (LD+, Lab-, Green flat)
Oregon Public Broadcasting - With Shemia Fagan out, speculation on Oregon’s next secretary of state is in full swing
Secretary of State Shemia Fagan’s decision to resign her office in light of a mounting consulting scandal rocked Oregon’s political realm Tuesday. It also raised an immediate question: Who should fill Fagan’s shoes?
The question is weightier than mere Salem gossip. The secretary of state is Oregon’s top elections official, among other duties. Whomever Gov. Tina Kotek taps to fill out the rest of Fagan’s term will oversee a 2024 presidential election that could prove a major test to the nation’s political system.
Kotek is unlikely to make a decision for weeks, if past vacancies in the office are any indication. The governor hasn’t yet announced whether she’ll appoint a “placeholder” secretary who does not intend to run for election next year, or a person who wants to do the job long-term.
In the meantime, elected officials and others will think seriously about whether they could do the job. Among them, apparently, is State Treasurer Tobias Read. . . .
Read, who ran unsuccessfully against Kotek in 2022 Democratic primary, already has at least some support for taking on the secretary role. Kotek will hear a lot of other names before she makes her decision. Under state law, she must choose a Democrat, like Fagan.
Informal conversations with Democratic politicos Tuesday turned up a wide range of names, including a trio of current or former Multnomah County officials: Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, who just won the role, former Chair Deborah Kafoury, and Commissioner Susheela Jayapal.
Current and former lawmakers are also in the mix. Former Senate President Peter Courtney, the longest-tenured lawmaker in state history, has been floated as an option if Kotek decides to appoint a short-timer. . . .
Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber and Rep. Janelle Bynum, both considered business-friendly Democrats, were being talked up in some corners . . .
Others insisted that Kotek should steer clear of appointing a sitting senator at all costs. That’s based on the current math of the Senate, where Sen. Chris Gorsek, D-Troutdale, has been absent since mid-March due to health issues. With Gorsek out, Democrats have a bare 16-person majority in the 30-member chamber. If Kotek named Lieber or another Democrat secretary of state, the party would find it impossible to move big pieces of its agenda through the chamber until the empty seat could be filled. . . .
Though note that the word "house" is part of the problem. Too few people outside London are prepared to live in flats. I lived in flats for the first 13 years of adult life and it was perfectly fine.
I also lived in flats for many years. 50% of the time it was fine, but the other 50% it was a bit of a nightmare dealing with a freeholder who had no interest in doing anything beyond absolutely critical maintenance and who we had no leverage to persuade to care about one elderly building in their vast property portfolio.
I have no problems with the flat living experience itself - I do have issues with being so dependent on a commercial freeholder and with having to try to get everyone in the block to agree about improvements. At least with a house you control your own destiny wrt maintenance. Certainly after my flat owning experience I resolved never to buy leasehold again.
Yes, we were always shared freehold which is much better though still relies on amicable relations with the neighbours on things like property maintenance.
F/w 24 - 28 April. Changes vs. 29 March - 2 April.
Misleading as in many areas there won't be an Independent candidate and the Independent votes will therefore go Tory
Why do you assume people voting independent will vote Tory? I voted independent last time, I'm not a Tory and I doubt that all the other 70% who did in defeating the Tory were either last time these seats were fought.
I always think the title "Independent" is the worst type of misnomer. Often they are people who realise that if they stood on a party ticket that aligned with their views people wouldn't vote for them. Martin Bell being the classic example.
Tucker Carlson January 7, 2021 — 04:18:04 PM UTC A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
Perhaps he could consider applying that humanitarian logic to Ukraine where for over a year he's been delighting in seeing a group of Putin guys surrounding an entire country and attempting to beat the living shit out of it.
Fucker Carlson is as much of a humanitarian, as I am a Zoroastrian.
His mealy-mouthed faux "humanitarianism" is maybe most disgusting thing re: this two-legged turd.
The obvious solution is to open the coronation up to sponsorship. I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to the tories. Right up their street. We could even go the whole hog and whore out Charles and Camilla to the highest bidder.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the King and Queen of England, sponsored by tampax.”
Tucker Carlson January 7, 2021 — 04:18:04 PM UTC A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
Perhaps he could consider applying that humanitarian logic to Ukraine where for over a year he's been delighting in seeing a group of Putin guys surrounding an entire country and attempting to beat the living shit out of it.
Fucker Carlson is as much of a humanitarian, as I am a Zoroastrian.
His mealy-mouthed faux "humanitarianism" is maybe most disgusting thing re: this two-legged turd.
That was a horrid piece on many levels. Yuck.
BUT with a big silver lining, as this text was apparently THE smoking gun that got Fucker Carlson shit-canned.
ADDENDUM - Seeing as how, with a tweak or two, might have been lifted straight from the diaries of Joseph Goebbels.
A late Savanta, with another due later today I guess.
Labour’s polling decline really does seem to have decoupled from the now-over Tory rise - which suggests there’s an issue with Labour itself, rather than the Tories just getting their act (a little bit) together.
Out of date poll, but nonetheless certainly some evidence of churn within the LLG vote in recent days (LD+, Lab-, Green flat)
And depending on where that churn is happening, that might suit all three LLG parties just fine.
The local election results are tomorrow night and Friday, the coronation isn't until Saturday so I doubt there will be too much clash.
On the current forecast the Tories will lose 400-500 seats, much better than Major did in 1995 or May did in 2019 or even Blair did in 1999, 2003 and 2007 at the same stage of the local elections cycle.
So the results may not be the annihilation for Rishi's party some predict
Not quite the gains you were assuring us would happen not so long ago, tho, is it?
The obvious solution is to open the coronation up to sponsorship. I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to the tories. Right up their street. We could even go the whole hog and whore out Charles and Camilla to the highest bidder.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the King and Queen of England, sponsored by tampax.”
Sponsored by Ashley Madison, the dating site where infidelity is OK
F/w 24 - 28 April. Changes vs. 29 March - 2 April.
Misleading as in many areas there won't be an Independent candidate and the Independent votes will therefore go Tory
Why do you assume people voting independent will vote Tory? I voted independent last time, I'm not a Tory and I doubt that all the other 70% who did in defeating the Tory were either last time these seats were fought.
I always think the title "Independent" is the worst type of misnomer. Often they are people who realise that if they stood on a party ticket that aligned with their views people wouldn't vote for them. Martin Bell being the classic example.
I'm sure that is true, but not always. In Guildford the Indies really are, as we know where many of them come from. They really are a mix of Conservatives, LDs and none of the above who have put party politics to one side to focus on local issues. I don't know if they have any ex Labour members, but if they did I am sure they would be welcome. There is a conflict for me as the council currently is a joint LD/Indie council and seems to be run well following a corrupt Tory council. Several of the indy group came from the Tory group who had had enough of their local leadership but they we're proper Tories, but put party politic to one side. Some LDs defected to this group also.
Nationally I'm sure they will go back to their natural affiliation.
The obvious solution is to open the coronation up to sponsorship. I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to the tories. Right up their street. We could even go the whole hog and whore out Charles and Camilla to the highest bidder.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the King and Queen of England, sponsored by tampax.”
Ha. That recording was worse than any breach of privacy Harry has suffered from.
The local election results are tomorrow night and Friday, the coronation isn't until Saturday so I doubt there will be too much clash.
On the current forecast the Tories will lose 400-500 seats, much better than Major did in 1995 or May did in 2019 or even Blair did in 1999, 2003 and 2007 at the same stage of the local elections cycle.
So the results may not be the annihilation for Rishi's party some predict
Not quite the gains you were assuring us would happen not so long ago, tho, is it?
I never predicted anything but losses to Labour, against the LDs the picture will be mixed and the Tories could well gain seats in councils the LDs gained in 2019 where the LDs administration is not popular
F/w 24 - 28 April. Changes vs. 29 March - 2 April.
Misleading as in many areas there won't be an Independent candidate and the Independent votes will therefore go Tory
Why do you assume people voting independent will vote Tory? I voted independent last time, I'm not a Tory and I doubt that all the other 70% who did in defeating the Tory were either last time these seats were fought.
I always think the title "Independent" is the worst type of misnomer. Often they are people who realise that if they stood on a party ticket that aligned with their views people wouldn't vote for them. Martin Bell being the classic example.
I'm sure that is true, but not always. In Guildford the Indies really are, as we know where many of them come from. They really are a mix of Conservatives, LDs and none of the above who have put party politics to one side to focus on local issues. I don't know if they have any ex Labour members, but if they did I am sure they would be welcome. There is a conflict for me as the council currently is a joint LD/Indie council and seems to be run well following a corrupt Tory council. Several of the indy group came from the Tory group who had had enough of their local leadership but they we're proper Tories, but put party politic to one side. Some LDs defected to this group also.
Nationally I'm sure they will go back to their natural affiliation.
The important thing is not the candidates, it's the voters. While HYUFD is right to an extent, I'd suggest that a 100% cross-over between Con and Ind voters is nonsense: some Ind voters will be non-voters, smaller numbers will be LD, Grn or Lab voting Ind becaue that's the only non-Try option, and so on. I'd expect the Cons to be net beneficiaries from the Ind segment, but if the Inds are getting 14%, the Con benefit would probably be only 2 or 3%.
F/w 24 - 28 April. Changes vs. 29 March - 2 April.
Misleading as in many areas there won't be an Independent candidate and the Independent votes will therefore go Tory
Why do you assume people voting independent will otherwise vote Tory if there isn't an independent. I voted independent last time, I'm not a Tory and I doubt that all the other 70% who did in defeating the Tory were either last time these seats were fought.
In my experience most people who vote Independent locally vote Tory at general elections, see Uttlesford for example. Now Independent controlled since May 2019 but with one of the biggest Conservative majorities in the UK at the 2019 general election
A late Savanta, with another due later today I guess.
Labour’s polling decline really does seem to have decoupled from the now-over Tory rise - which suggests there’s an issue with Labour itself, rather than the Tories just getting their act (a little bit) together.
Just seen Sunak vs Starmer at PMQs and what an embarrassment Sunak is as Prime Minister. King of the NIMBYs banging on about giving "local control" to stop housing, when we have a housing crisis.
If I hadn't already decided I won't vote Tory tomorrow, that would be a clincher.
Cheshire and Amersham was a disappointment for seeing the Lib Dems win based on a disreputable NIMBY campaign, but the Tories have gone wholeheartedly to the dark side.
I'm never voting for them again, until they become the party of aspiration again - which I can't ever see happening under Sunak.
It will happen, but it's going to be a long slog. The Conservatives are prisoners of their electorate, who are now overwhelmingly retired homeowners who see no reason for any more development, thank you. I don't see how the Conservatives move to a different coalition without a purgative spell in opposition.
Give him his due, Starmer is at least making "getting it" noises, though the devil will be in the details.
Yep. More of that and I might actually vote Labour next time, despite having thought I'd never do so again after Brown trashed the economy with his deficit spending.
If Starmer can come up with a plan that involves getting stuff done, like construction, to move the economy instead of just throwing taxpayers money at every problem (like Brown) or just shutting up shop and managing decline (like Sunak) then he will deserve a term in Downing Street.
Not holding my breath though.
Concreting over the Green Belt would be electoral poison for Labour. For example, in my old home town of Crawley (a must win for Labour at the next GE) a plan for a vast housing estate on the Ifield golf course was met with local fury and organized protests. If Sir Keir goes for 'Build, baby, build' then he's an idiot. On this issue HYUFD is right, right and right again!
Indeed, we need some new housing but it should be focused on brownbelt land first. Any government which tries to concrete over the greenbelt will be hugely unpopular
Ah yes, that fictional canard "the brownbelt" again.
There's no such thing. The countries population has increased by 20% in a generation, there simply isn't unused land going idle to fit those houses into, the only realistic way you can increase by 20% your population is to increase by 20% the land being used. 🤦♂️
Which would be an almost insignificant eating into greenfield land, but treating all green land as holy places never to be touched is the problem. Typically by people who themselves live in areas they'd consider green but their own house is an exception clearly as its already there.
Tighten immigration controls and that reduces pressure on the demand side too
No, it doesn't.
You could stop immigration overnight and all the housing problems that exist today would still exist tomorrow.
Unless you want to enforce mass-deportations, then everyone who lives here still needs a home to live in, and children who grow up whether children of people who migrated or not, will need a home of their own too.
This isn't actually true unless you also stop emigration and close the borders completely.
Emigration isn't of a scale to close the housing shortage.
Over half a million a year would make a considerable dent in it.
It'd take 20 years at that rate to get us back to the population we had when the housing system broke down and house prices exploded.
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
Except that it is not a human right to own a house. You see it as such, I guess, because you have either found it difficult to buy a house or maybe still have not. You have been quite brutal in your views on here on other matters (e.g. people catching covid, businesses going bust because of Brexit), so I will be brutal with you: The reality is that if you earn enough, you can still afford to buy, so rather than whinging about it Barty, work harder/smarter and afford a house. Alternatively you can rent a property and spend hours on here whinging about how unfair it all is.
Um I don't think BartholomewRoberts is just talking about house prices he's talking about rents as well.
I am treating Barty to a bit of his cold, unfeeling right wing medicine. I actually agree that the system needs some radical solutions. I just don't have sympathy for someone like Barty who normally suggests that anyone who complains needs to be told to pull their socks up or suck it up, as in the examples I gave.
The difficulty with housing is that parties of all stripes are (rightly) worried about creating conditions that cause a house price crash. Barty thinks this would be a wonderful thing, and whatever it did to the economy and individuals is just tough shit -the old suck it up lack of sympathy for which he is infamous. But, like with most of his views, people who actually understand these things disagree and understand that even muppets like Barty (who IIRC was a supporter of Trussconomics) will suffer significantly.
If you doubled house building, it would just reduce the rate of increase in housing cost.
To crash house prices would take something like building a half dozen new Oxfords. Each year.
A late Savanta, with another due later today I guess.
Labour’s polling decline really does seem to have decoupled from the now-over Tory rise - which suggests there’s an issue with Labour itself, rather than the Tories just getting their act (a little bit) together.
"Hilariously out of date".
However the Wikipedia chart has both parties in decline...
F/w 24 - 28 April. Changes vs. 29 March - 2 April.
Misleading as in many areas there won't be an Independent candidate and the Independent votes will therefore go Tory
Why do you assume people voting independent will otherwise vote Tory if there isn't an independent. I voted independent last time, I'm not a Tory and I doubt that all the other 70% who did in defeating the Tory were either last time these seats were fought.
In my experience most people who vote Independent locally vote Tory at general elections, see Uttlesford for example. Now Independent controlled since May 2019 but with one of the biggest Conservative majorities in the UK at the 2019 general election
I'm shocked - shocked, I say - to hear that "Residents for Uttlesford" may be attracting support from people who vote Tory in general elections.
Tucker Carlson January 7, 2021 — 04:18:04 PM UTC A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
Perhaps he could consider applying that humanitarian logic to Ukraine where for over a year he's been delighting in seeing a group of Putin guys surrounding an entire country and attempting to beat the living shit out of it.
Fucker Carlson is as much of a humanitarian, as I am a Zoroastrian.
His mealy-mouthed faux "humanitarianism" is maybe most disgusting thing re: this two-legged turd.
Friday - the focus will be on the local election results
Saturday - it's all about the Coronation!
Or to put it another way, the local election results will not be that exciting!
SPOILER ALERT - Charles will be confirmed as King, and his hag as Queen
Do I take it The Sunil isn't a fan of the former Mrs Parker-Bowles?
Let's just say Diana would have made a much more OK looking Queen
Its not about looks....
How does it feel to have an adulterer and adulteress as head of the Church?
Nominal.
The Church Of England was invented so that the King of England could marry and divorce whoever he wanted.
Anyone who can't get with the program in the CoE should be ready for some re...... formation of the organisation.
Given the continuing loss of membership and general decline in business, it seems reasonable to me, to start with a head count reduction at the senior levels.
The local election results are tomorrow night and Friday, the coronation isn't until Saturday so I doubt there will be too much clash.
On the current forecast the Tories will lose 400-500 seats, much better than Major did in 1995 or May did in 2019 or even Blair did in 1999, 2003 and 2007 at the same stage of the local elections cycle.
So the results may not be the annihilation for Rishi's party some predict
Not quite the gains you were assuring us would happen not so long ago, tho, is it?
I never predicted anything but losses to Labour, against the LDs the picture will be mixed and the Tories could well gain seats in councils the LDs gained in 2019 where the LDs administration is not popular
You may be right about the LDs losing a few seats as incumbents (from a decent base in 2019) but won't that, likely as not, more than be offset where incumbent Tories lose to the LDs as a result of the national picture?
Tucker Carlson January 7, 2021 — 04:18:04 PM UTC A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
Perhaps he could consider applying that humanitarian logic to Ukraine where for over a year he's been delighting in seeing a group of Putin guys surrounding an entire country and attempting to beat the living shit out of it.
Fucker Carlson is as much of a humanitarian, as I am a Zoroastrian.
His mealy-mouthed faux "humanitarianism" is maybe most disgusting thing re: this two-legged turd.
That was a horrid piece on many levels. Yuck.
BUT with a big silver lining, as this text was apparently THE smoking gun that got Fucker Carlson shit-canned.
ADDENDUM - Seeing as how, with a tweak or two, might have been lifted straight from the diaries of Joseph Goebbels.
That sound you hear in your head, when you read that passage, is that of an awful person trying to squeeze into a form of a decent human being.
Tucker Carlson January 7, 2021 — 04:18:04 PM UTC A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
Perhaps he could consider applying that humanitarian logic to Ukraine where for over a year he's been delighting in seeing a group of Putin guys surrounding an entire country and attempting to beat the living shit out of it.
Fucker Carlson is as much of a humanitarian, as I am a Zoroastrian.
His mealy-mouthed faux "humanitarianism" is maybe most disgusting thing re: this two-legged turd.
That was a horrid piece on many levels. Yuck.
BUT with a big silver lining, as this text was apparently THE smoking gun that got Fucker Carlson shit-canned.
ADDENDUM - Seeing as how, with a tweak or two, might have been lifted straight from the diaries of Joseph Goebbels.
It's pushing all the buttons isn't it. This MAGA movement in America is no joke.
It's not terrible but I think she'd have retained slightly more 'lustre' than that. That looks like my Aunt Enid at 60. She was the glamourpuss of the family but she smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish. Also lived in Birmingham.
Comments
No wonder they are bringing in Remote ID / Aeroscope etc for consumer drones and trying to get people to use ones under 250g (which I also have - the technology has advanced an amazing amount recently).
On the other hand, I don't see the gain for the Ukrainians. It just gives more excuses for the Russians to posture (if they needed any).
Blow the place up, or don't.
The Sun's Political Editor Harry Cole speculates the coronation will cost the UK "into the hundreds of billions", but suggests that the exposure it will get is "worth it's weight in gold."
The Spectator's Political Correspondent @JAHeale echoes this view
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1653699378266230785
Though that entails a total and complete halt of immigration, which is never going to happen. Even the most draconian suggestions of immigration control are suggesting still-positive net migration (eg Cameron and May's "tens of thousands" pledge). Even if net migration came all the way down to zero, which isn't going to happen, emigration would be doing nothing to ease the housing crisis.
Few things are more corrosive of public trust than pretending a problem isn’t there. Sooner or later the public notices.
By Andrew Marr" (£)
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2023/05/why-britain-needs-to-have-an-honest-conversation-about-rising-migration
Ukraine have more important targets and are fighting for their survival, not engaged in this sort of game.
Putin has done the falseflag playbook and played on fear and victimhood for decades. Its what got him in, with the Chechens, and he's done it ever since.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1653685840206499840?t=6QCXz9rSOb4cKm0aYA9SZg&s=19
The only one saving grace for CON here is that Labour at 33% are no where near where they were in 1995 and 1996 when they were polling well above 40% in those local elections (especially 1995 which was complete oblivion for CON)
Explaining how the increased housing demand will be met.
Explaining how much extra tax is needed to pay for schools, health etc, and where it will come from.
In general much migration into the UK is of younger people who want to work, pay tax and make a good life for themselves. We should support that. Their success is the nations success. But adding 500,000 people a year has challenges, and this should be owned by those in power.
I can't recall any of our parties saying that.
Saying more houses, schools or whatever are needed is not.
We can discuss practical things like the number of schools or houses needed, that's a matter of practicality. The racial demographic mix of people in an area is not.
Make those ratios 69% and 6% and you could end the housing crisis.
A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
It could be that many who move to the area don't have english as a first language, so the random chats on the street stop.
Non of those are, I think, racist in themselves.
It is racist to prevent more properties being built.
And the both issues boil down to a single point - the supply of housing needs to increase.
It's not a human right to own a house, obviously. But I'd prefer to see a UK in which the top 70% could afford to own a house than a UK in which that was only possible for the top 30%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65471314
Around where I'm currently sitting (in an office towerblock in Canary Wharf) they are erecting thousands of living units just like that: bish bash bosh. Huge skyscrapers, massive increase in capacity, with generally the infrastructure and services to go with them. Down where I live in Lewisham they've thrown up at least 10 huge new residential towerblocks around the station in a couple of years and they're still building. Aside from the occasional local campaign about flood risks from culverting the quaggy river there's scarcely any NIMBY activity. It shows what can be done, at density, in short order. And in Lewisham while hardly Hausmann's Paris it's a net improvement on the old aesthetics of the place.
The difficulty with housing is that parties of all stripes are (rightly) worried about creating conditions that cause a house price crash. Barty thinks this would be a wonderful thing, and whatever it did to the economy and individuals is just tough shit -the old suck it up lack of sympathy for which he is infamous. But, like with most of his views, people who actually understand these things disagree and understand that even muppets like Barty (who IIRC was a supporter of Trussconomics) will suffer significantly.
People almost don't notice if the people they interact with have a different skin colour but dress the same, speak the same, share the same references, etc. They notice quite a lot if the people they interact with dress differently, speak differently, etc - even if to all extents and purposes their skin tone is almost indistinguishable for their own.
Ever the optimist HY, ever the optimist.
His mealy-mouthed faux "humanitarianism" is maybe most disgusting thing re: this two-legged turd.
Go woke or go broke.
The opening of the latest Guardians of the Galaxy film begins with an acoustic version of Radiohead’s Creep.
Marvellous opening for a marvellous film.
I have no problems with the flat living experience itself - I do have issues with being so dependent on a commercial freeholder and with having to try to get everyone in the block to agree about improvements. At least with a house you control your own destiny wrt maintenance. Certainly after my flat owning experience I resolved never to buy leasehold again.
Secretary of State Shemia Fagan’s decision to resign her office in light of a mounting consulting scandal rocked Oregon’s political realm Tuesday. It also raised an immediate question: Who should fill Fagan’s shoes?
The question is weightier than mere Salem gossip. The secretary of state is Oregon’s top elections official, among other duties. Whomever Gov. Tina Kotek taps to fill out the rest of Fagan’s term will oversee a 2024 presidential election that could prove a major test to the nation’s political system.
Kotek is unlikely to make a decision for weeks, if past vacancies in the office are any indication. The governor hasn’t yet announced whether she’ll appoint a “placeholder” secretary who does not intend to run for election next year, or a person who wants to do the job long-term.
In the meantime, elected officials and others will think seriously about whether they could do the job. Among them, apparently, is State Treasurer Tobias Read. . . .
Read, who ran unsuccessfully against Kotek in 2022 Democratic primary, already has at least some support for taking on the secretary role. Kotek will hear a lot of other names before she makes her decision. Under state law, she must choose a Democrat, like Fagan.
Informal conversations with Democratic politicos Tuesday turned up a wide range of names, including a trio of current or former Multnomah County officials: Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, who just won the role, former Chair Deborah Kafoury, and Commissioner Susheela Jayapal.
Current and former lawmakers are also in the mix. Former Senate President Peter Courtney, the longest-tenured lawmaker in state history, has been floated as an option if Kotek decides to appoint a short-timer. . . .
Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber and Rep. Janelle Bynum, both considered business-friendly Democrats, were being talked up in some corners . . .
Others insisted that Kotek should steer clear of appointing a sitting senator at all costs. That’s based on the current math of the Senate, where Sen. Chris Gorsek, D-Troutdale, has been absent since mid-March due to health issues. With Gorsek out, Democrats have a bare 16-person majority in the 30-member chamber. If Kotek named Lieber or another Democrat secretary of state, the party would find it impossible to move big pieces of its agenda through the chamber until the empty seat could be filled. . . .
https://www.klcc.org/politics-government/2023-05-03/with-shemia-fagan-out-speculation-on-oregons-next-secretary-of-state-is-in-full-swing
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/more-than-half-of-britons-think-coronation-shouldnt-be-publicly-funded-new-poll-suggests-12860254
The obvious solution is to open the coronation up to sponsorship. I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to the tories. Right up their street. We could even go the whole hog and whore out Charles and Camilla to the highest bidder.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the King and Queen of England, sponsored by tampax.”
ADDENDUM - Seeing as how, with a tweak or two, might have been lifted straight from the diaries of Joseph Goebbels.
Nationally I'm sure they will go back to their natural affiliation.
For both Chaz and everyone else.
To crash house prices would take something like building a half dozen new Oxfords. Each year.
Mind you, I agree entirely about Fucker.
(apparently - if it's AI and the Mail say it then it must be right, right?)
The Church Of England was invented so that the King of England could marry and divorce whoever he wanted.
Anyone who can't get with the program in the CoE should be ready for some re...... formation of the organisation.
Given the continuing loss of membership and general decline in business, it seems reasonable to me, to start with a head count reduction at the senior levels.