The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrest of six protesters in London before the coronation.
Leader of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among six people detained by officers, who seized items that they believed could be used as lock-on devices.
However, the Met now says an investigation has been unable to prove intent to disrupt the event.
"This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken," the Met said in a statement.
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route."…
… Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has backed the Met over arrests amid concerns they were cracking down on dissent on Saturday at the behest of politicians.
Note they had contacted the Met in advance of the protest to clear it. In this case the Met have no excuse for their behaviour.
Just imagine what will unleashed on the UK if the Tories get another 5 year term. They are a clear and present danger to UK democracy and need to be removed before the UK becomes unrecognizable .
Trouble is that Labour have no plans to repeal the legislation either, when was the last government that improved freedom to protest against themselves?
The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrest of six protesters in London before the coronation.
Leader of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among six people detained by officers, who seized items that they believed could be used as lock-on devices.
However, the Met now says an investigation has been unable to prove intent to disrupt the event.
"This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken," the Met said in a statement.
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route."…
… Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has backed the Met over arrests amid concerns they were cracking down on dissent on Saturday at the behest of politicians.
Note they had contacted the Met in advance of the protest to clear it. In this case the Met have no excuse for their behaviour.
Just imagine what will unleashed on the UK if the Tories get another 5 year term. They are a clear and present danger to UK democracy and need to be removed before the UK becomes unrecognizable .
You seem to be channelling William Hague's foreign land speech.
"Graham Smith, the head of the group, said it was considering legal action and demanded an inquiry into the conduct of officers."
I don't suppose legal action has much chance with our current laws but a successful case would be a great way to put overzealous policing of peaceful protest in its place.
I'm always cautious with Labour. Maybe its shy Tories, but Labour often don't do as well as you might expect, or hope, given the circumstances. I mean:
1945 - Landslide - well done. 1950 - Turn a landslide into a majority of 2(!) 1951 - Lose and out of power for 13 years. 1964 - Do so well they manage a majority of only 2, after thirteen years of the Conservatives and up against Lord Home. 1966 - A good result! 1970 - everyone expected them to win, but then Gordon Banks didn't play, so they lost! 1974 (both) - Hung parliament and a wafer thin majority. 1979 - It was believed only six months earlier that Callaghan would manage to win, but he lost and Labour went to 18 years in the wilderness. 1992 - We're alright? No we're not. Expected to win, and lost instead. 1997 - 20 point lead.... no, actually only 12%. The seat totals and bias in the system just resulted in a massive majority. Major still got a bigger % of the vote than Foot, Brown and Miliband did. 2010 - Hung parliament, but not really in the game were they? 2015 - Five years of the hated coalition and they still lose. 2017 - They win by being sixty seats short. 2019 - Another hammering on par with Michael Foot's woeful performance.
Re 1997:
It wasn't the "bias in the system" that resulted in the massive majority, it was the fact that Libs voted Lab, Labs voted Lib.
And tactical voting can absolutely hammer the Conservatives. In 2005, the Labour Party was just 2.6% ahead of the Conservatives. And yet ended up with a majority of 60-odd.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
But likely less so than in previous decades.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
So, we affluent oldies get extra benefit while the young find it even harder to get on the property ladder. Sounds like just what the country needs!
A new normal of 5% interest rates should depress house prices though. It has to really.
Not necessarily. Firstly, hiking interest rates does nothing to address the fundamental imbalance of supply and demand, which is at the core of property price inflation. Secondly, prices can still be rigged through other means. Exhibit A - rumours that Sunak is toying with a revival of Help to Vote Tory Buy. Exhibit B - the re-emergence of 100% LTV mortgages onto the market.
"This surely can't go on?!?!" People have been saying this about UK house prices for ages, just like they always used to say about the integrity of the Eurozone when that was on fire - and with what result?
I think that is simplistic.
People buy based on affordability.
As interest rates fell, property prices rose, so that affordability remained constant.
As interest rates rise, house prices fall. However, they don't fall as fast as they went up, because rising interest rates and falling house prices reduces the supply of housing (people who have negative equity can't sell).
House prices are ultimately sustained by
1) The massive shortage of housing vs demand. 2) The ability to pay
Twiddling with 2) won't do very much for the actual problem. which is (1)
To repurpose an old joke, perhaps the Tories should plan for a winter of discount tents.
I know you joke but the shanty towns are coming. There's already a rise in mobile living with boats, vans, caravans etc. As immigration is bounding a long, councils are ripping up housing plans and builders completion rates are pretty stable where will everyone live?
A lot of the illegal migrants working in the black economy are in dormitories in packed HMOs, or living in other irregular forms of accommodation like lock up garages and garden sheds. And homeless people in rural areas are indeed to be found hidden away in tents in the woods.
Given that house building lags continually behind increases in population, this can do nothing but get worse.
I would be tempted, if rich, to buy a lot of hardware from Tanks A Lot and simply start building houses.
μολὼν λαβέ
Ummm.
You do know that building costs have gone through the roof, right?
It's hard to build new properties (except for city center flats) profitably, because the cost of new build is probably £200-250/square foot. And that's before land.
So, if you want to build a 1,500 square foot home, then (after securing the land and the planning permission), you're going to be spending £300,000 on construction alone.
Oh yeah, and don't forget the cost of money. You need to buy the land. Sit on it (paying interest) while you get planning permission. Pay for building. Then sell it.
If your land was £50,000, and it takes four years from purchase to completion, and your cost of capital is 10%. Well... then in all probability you need to sell that property for £350,000 to just break even.
Now, can you do that in the South East?
Sure you can. But there's not unlimited demand for £350,000 homes. That means people in need to earn around £100,000 per year to purchase it.
A tent city of heavily armed Albanians to do the building.
Planning permission? Why should I bother?
Agricultural land is a few K an acre….
Edit: plus your numbers are off. I’ve had a £350k quote to demolish a 3 bed house in central London, keep the front wall and nothing else and rebuild. Green field en mass outside London will be cheaper
This is 2023 latest data
And
From Planradar.com (2021-2):
I better tell the guys who made that quote they are wrong.
Plus they did a similar job at that price for someone I know a couple of streets over.
I wonder if your numbers are being pushed up by including basements (insanely expensive) ?
You are free to read through the annual reports of the big UK housebuilders. They all complain of big increases of the cost of building.
And, btw, I'm not convinced your example is that much evidence of my figures being wrong.
A three bedroom London home is probably about 1,500 square feet. So, you're talking about £225/square foot (or c. £2,000/sq meter), which is in the middle of my £200-250/sq foot range.
And don't forget that for a genuinely new build, there are incremental expenses above and beyond the work for your three bedroomed house. You will not have needed to pay to get utilities routed to the house or create access roads, for example.
Since, as often happens here, some of you have been discussing housing costs, I thought I would give you a link to one of the most successful examples of inexpensive housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York
I don't see any reason why, given our technological progress, we couldn't build similar-sized, better houses, for less money (in real terms), now, both in the US and the UK.
(This detail fascinates me: "Oddly enough, although Levittown is remembered largely for its homogeneity, the majority of houses in Levittown have by now been so thoroughly expanded and modified by their owners that their original architectural form can be somewhat difficult to see; however, with diligent observation, several original examples can still be seen today.")
Since, as often happens here, some of you have been discussing housing costs, I thought I would give you a link to one of the most successful examples of inexpensive housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York
I don't see any reason why, given our technological progress, we couldn't build similar-sized, better houses, for less money (in real terms), now, both in the US and the UK.
(This detail fascinates me: "Oddly enough, although Levittown is remembered largely for its homogeneity, the majority of houses in Levittown have by now been so thoroughly expanded and modified by their owners that their original architectural form can be somewhat difficult to see; however, with diligent observation, several original examples can still be seen today.")
Most of our technological progress since the war has been in manipulating tiny things, like chemical molecules or nanometres of circuitry. But cement and wood have not been improved on, nor have hands become cheaper. What tops it off is that, when commutable land becomes more scarce, land values capture urban premia for skilled labour, plus the more attractive amenities of cities today compared to the late 20th century.
I'm always cautious with Labour. Maybe its shy Tories, but Labour often don't do as well as you might expect, or hope, given the circumstances. I mean:
1945 - Landslide - well done. 1950 - Turn a landslide into a majority of 2(!) 1951 - Lose and out of power for 13 years. 1964 - Do so well they manage a majority of only 2, after thirteen years of the Conservatives and up against Lord Home. 1966 - A good result! 1970 - everyone expected them to win, but then Gordon Banks didn't play, so they lost! 1974 (both) - Hung parliament and a wafer thin majority. 1979 - It was believed only six months earlier that Callaghan would manage to win, but he lost and Labour went to 18 years in the wilderness. 1992 - We're alright? No we're not. Expected to win, and lost instead. 1997 - 20 point lead.... no, actually only 12%. The seat totals and bias in the system just resulted in a massive majority. Major still got a bigger % of the vote than Foot, Brown and Miliband did. 2010 - Hung parliament, but not really in the game were they? 2015 - Five years of the hated coalition and they still lose. 2017 - They win by being sixty seats short. 2019 - Another hammering on par with Michael Foot's woeful performance.
Re 1997:
It wasn't the "bias in the system" that resulted in the massive majority, it was the fact that Libs voted Lab, Labs voted Lib.
And tactical voting can absolutely hammer the Conservatives. In 2005, the Labour Party was just 2.6% ahead of the Conservatives. And yet ended up with a majority of 60-odd.
2005 is a good comparator to where we are now. 2005: Labour 35.2%, Tories 32.4%, Libs 22.1%. If that sort of tactical voting is replicated in 2024, and Labour are just, say, a disappointing 5% ahead of the Tories, they would win a substantial majority. It's on that basis that I think Labour will win a majority, even if the Libs don't get quite as much as 22%. Especially if Labour win back some Scottish seats.
Sunaks enthusiasm on steroids every time he’s interviewed is getting on my txts! And if I hear stop the boats again as part of that list I’m going to lose it !
Since, as often happens here, some of you have been discussing housing costs, I thought I would give you a link to one of the most successful examples of inexpensive housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York
I don't see any reason why, given our technological progress, we couldn't build similar-sized, better houses, for less money (in real terms), now, both in the US and the UK.
(This detail fascinates me: "Oddly enough, although Levittown is remembered largely for its homogeneity, the majority of houses in Levittown have by now been so thoroughly expanded and modified by their owners that their original architectural form can be somewhat difficult to see; however, with diligent observation, several original examples can still be seen today.")
Most of our technological progress since the war has been in manipulating tiny things, like chemical molecules or nanometres of circuitry. But cement and wood have not been improved on, nor have hands become cheaper. What tops it off is that, when commutable land becomes more scarce, land values capture urban premia for skilled labour, plus the more attractive amenities of cities today compared to the late 20th century.
The cost of building has almost nothing to do with the cost of walls and roofs. Block work and pre-made roof trusses are quick to slap into place.
It’s all about the internal fittings and decoration.
So when you see another “3D print concrete walls, for cheap houses” project, throw a cinder block at them…
But I am satisfied that they have shown what is possible, though it may be done by other companies. And I think that automation can further reduce their construction costs, again, in real terms.
A key advantage to their designs is that they are "foldable", so they can be shipped on ordinary trucks.
(Some people will be impressed that Elon Musk has one, and sometimes lives in it; others will decide that shows the idea is bogus.)
The late Paul Allen sponsored a somewhat similar modular housing company, though, as I understand it, the company produces large chunks at its factory, rather than whole homes. They have been supplying some cosntruction projects in the Seattle area.
"Graham Smith, the head of the group, said it was considering legal action and demanded an inquiry into the conduct of officers."
I don't suppose legal action has much chance with our current laws but a successful case would be a great way to put overzealous policing of peaceful protest in its place.
The one that could really sink the police is if those three volunteers who they arrested for handing out rape alarms really were part of the women's safety charity group as claimed. I have no idea if that wil turn out to be the case but that would be a catastrophically bad look for the police.
I'm always cautious with Labour. Maybe its shy Tories, but Labour often don't do as well as you might expect, or hope, given the circumstances. I mean:
1945 - Landslide - well done. 1950 - Turn a landslide into a majority of 2(!) 1951 - Lose and out of power for 13 years. 1964 - Do so well they manage a majority of only 2, after thirteen years of the Conservatives and up against Lord Home. 1966 - A good result! 1970 - everyone expected them to win, but then Gordon Banks didn't play, so they lost! 1974 (both) - Hung parliament and a wafer thin majority. 1979 - It was believed only six months earlier that Callaghan would manage to win, but he lost and Labour went to 18 years in the wilderness. 1992 - We're alright? No we're not. Expected to win, and lost instead. 1997 - 20 point lead.... no, actually only 12%. The seat totals and bias in the system just resulted in a massive majority. Major still got a bigger % of the vote than Foot, Brown and Miliband did. 2010 - Hung parliament, but not really in the game were they? 2015 - Five years of the hated coalition and they still lose. 2017 - They win by being sixty seats short. 2019 - Another hammering on par with Michael Foot's woeful performance.
Re 1997:
It wasn't the "bias in the system" that resulted in the massive majority, it was the fact that Libs voted Lab, Labs voted Lib.
And tactical voting can absolutely hammer the Conservatives. In 2005, the Labour Party was just 2.6% ahead of the Conservatives. And yet ended up with a majority of 60-odd.
2005 is a good comparator to where we are now. 2005: Labour 35.2%, Tories 32.4%, Libs 22.1%. If that sort of tactical voting is replicated in 2024, and Labour are just, say, a disappointing 5% ahead of the Tories, they would win a substantial majority. It's on that basis that I think Labour will win a majority, even if the Libs don't get quite as much as 22%. Especially if Labour win back some Scottish seats.
I hope you are right. A hung Parliament would be disastrously bad for the country at the moment.
"Graham Smith, the head of the group, said it was considering legal action and demanded an inquiry into the conduct of officers."
I don't suppose legal action has much chance with our current laws but a successful case would be a great way to put overzealous policing of peaceful protest in its place.
The one that could really sink the police is if those three volunteers who they arrested for handing out rape alarms really were part of the women's safety charity group as claimed. I have no idea if that wil turn out to be the case but that would be a catastrophically bad look for the police.
And yet usually they are so adept with managing their public image.
But I am satisfied that they have shown what is possible, though it may be done by other companies. And I think that automation can further reduce their construction costs, again, in real terms.
A key advantage to their designs is that they are "foldable", so they can be shipped on ordinary trucks.
(Some people will be impressed that Elon Musk has one, and sometimes lives in it; others will decide that shows the idea is bogus.)
The late Paul Allen sponsored a somewhat similar modular housing company, though, as I understand it, the company produces large chunks at its factory, rather than whole homes. They have been supplying some cosntruction projects in the Seattle area.
Yes, legit I think, there's no technological novelty or gimmick here, and we could have done it 30 years ago like they did 100 years ago. But I understand that (a) people with any means at all would prefer solidly built homes to live in (b) especially if they can afford the land under the property to begin with, and (c) the regulation is unfavourable.
But I am satisfied that they have shown what is possible, though it may be done by other companies. And I think that automation can further reduce their construction costs, again, in real terms.
A key advantage to their designs is that they are "foldable", so they can be shipped on ordinary trucks.
(Some people will be impressed that Elon Musk has one, and sometimes lives in it; others will decide that shows the idea is bogus.)
The late Paul Allen sponsored a somewhat similar modular housing company, though, as I understand it, the company produces large chunks at its factory, rather than whole homes. They have been supplying some cosntruction projects in the Seattle area.
I'm an investor in a project using Honomobu prefab homes, and they are pretty amazing.
But even they've been hammered by rising building material prices.
I'm always cautious with Labour. Maybe its shy Tories, but Labour often don't do as well as you might expect, or hope, given the circumstances. I mean:
1945 - Landslide - well done. 1950 - Turn a landslide into a majority of 2(!) 1951 - Lose and out of power for 13 years. 1964 - Do so well they manage a majority of only 2, after thirteen years of the Conservatives and up against Lord Home. 1966 - A good result! 1970 - everyone expected them to win, but then Gordon Banks didn't play, so they lost! 1974 (both) - Hung parliament and a wafer thin majority. 1979 - It was believed only six months earlier that Callaghan would manage to win, but he lost and Labour went to 18 years in the wilderness. 1992 - We're alright? No we're not. Expected to win, and lost instead. 1997 - 20 point lead.... no, actually only 12%. The seat totals and bias in the system just resulted in a massive majority. Major still got a bigger % of the vote than Foot, Brown and Miliband did. 2010 - Hung parliament, but not really in the game were they? 2015 - Five years of the hated coalition and they still lose. 2017 - They win by being sixty seats short. 2019 - Another hammering on par with Michael Foot's woeful performance.
Re 1997:
It wasn't the "bias in the system" that resulted in the massive majority, it was the fact that Libs voted Lab, Labs voted Lib.
And tactical voting can absolutely hammer the Conservatives. In 2005, the Labour Party was just 2.6% ahead of the Conservatives. And yet ended up with a majority of 60-odd.
2005 is a good comparator to where we are now. 2005: Labour 35.2%, Tories 32.4%, Libs 22.1%. If that sort of tactical voting is replicated in 2024, and Labour are just, say, a disappointing 5% ahead of the Tories, they would win a substantial majority. It's on that basis that I think Labour will win a majority, even if the Libs don't get quite as much as 22%. Especially if Labour win back some Scottish seats.
Very unlikely because the Labour vote is so much more concentrated in their safe seats today compared to 2005. In 2005, for instance, Labour were still able to win about half the seats in Kent, many of them with tiny majorities, something that's unlikely to happen at the next election. They also held all the seats in Staffordshire that they'd first won in 1997.
"Graham Smith, the head of the group, said it was considering legal action and demanded an inquiry into the conduct of officers."
I don't suppose legal action has much chance with our current laws but a successful case would be a great way to put overzealous policing of peaceful protest in its place.
The one that could really sink the police is if those three volunteers who they arrested for handing out rape alarms really were part of the women's safety charity group as claimed. I have no idea if that wil turn out to be the case but that would be a catastrophically bad look for the police.
It would. Although given there had been press articles on the run up to the coronation that protestors were planning to use rape alarms to scare the horses then - if they were representing a charity it was monumentally stupid and/or provocative of them to be there, at that time, giving out rape alarms
"The Kölsch Klüngel is something very special. There is nothing comparable in any city. It is part of Cologne and is also accepted by most citizens."
"The people of Cologne like to see themselves as friendly and human. And that's often not a problem either - that's why the clique is accepted by many people in Cologne. Because, as the legend goes, no one is harmed. That's why the clique is lived quite openly. What would be embarrassing for politicians in other cities is glorified here as part of the Cologne way of life."
"Yes, even the Left Party is involved. In Cologne, even the CDU talks to them, if only behind the scenes. Everyone can participate, only the right-wing extremists are not allowed to play. All of this looks very friendly on the outside, but often just sloppiness is concealed. Nobody looks so closely, nobody wants to spoil the good mood. Catastrophes like the collapse of the city archives with two dead are also the result of sloppy work and a lack of control, and something like that is promoted by the Cologne clique."
Comments
I don't suppose legal action has much chance with our current laws but a successful case would be a great way to put overzealous policing of peaceful protest in its place.
It wasn't the "bias in the system" that resulted in the massive majority, it was the fact that Libs voted Lab, Labs voted Lib.
And tactical voting can absolutely hammer the Conservatives. In 2005, the Labour Party was just 2.6% ahead of the Conservatives. And yet ended up with a majority of 60-odd.
And, btw, I'm not convinced your example is that much evidence of my figures being wrong.
A three bedroom London home is probably about 1,500 square feet. So, you're talking about £225/square foot (or c. £2,000/sq meter), which is in the middle of my £200-250/sq foot range.
And don't forget that for a genuinely new build, there are incremental expenses above and beyond the work for your three bedroomed house. You will not have needed to pay to get utilities routed to the house or create access roads, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York
I don't see any reason why, given our technological progress, we couldn't build similar-sized, better houses, for less money (in real terms), now, both in the US and the UK.
(This detail fascinates me: "Oddly enough, although Levittown is remembered largely for its homogeneity, the majority of houses in Levittown have by now been so thoroughly expanded and modified by their owners that their original architectural form can be somewhat difficult to see; however, with diligent observation, several original examples can still be seen today.")
It’s all about the internal fittings and decoration.
So when you see another “3D print concrete walls, for cheap houses” project, throw a cinder block at them…
The company has some question marks about its operations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxabl
But I am satisfied that they have shown what is possible, though it may be done by other companies. And I think that automation can further reduce their construction costs, again, in real terms.
A key advantage to their designs is that they are "foldable", so they can be shipped on ordinary trucks.
(Some people will be impressed that Elon Musk has one, and sometimes lives in it; others will decide that shows the idea is bogus.)
The late Paul Allen sponsored a somewhat similar modular housing company, though, as I understand it, the company produces large chunks at its factory, rather than whole homes. They have been supplying some cosntruction projects in the Seattle area.
But even they've been hammered by rising building material prices.
I had no idea about the so-called Kölner Klüngel (Cologne Clique) until I read this article. Someone mentioned it on the previous thread.
https://www-welt-de.translate.goog/regionales/nrw/article161682095/Warum-die-Koelner-ihren-Kluengel-so-lieben.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Kölner_Klüngel?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
Quotes:
"The Kölsch Klüngel is something very special. There is nothing comparable in any city. It is part of Cologne and is also accepted by most citizens."
"The people of Cologne like to see themselves as friendly and human. And that's often not a problem either - that's why the clique is accepted by many people in Cologne. Because, as the legend goes, no one is harmed. That's why the clique is lived quite openly. What would be embarrassing for politicians in other cities is glorified here as part of the Cologne way of life."
"Yes, even the Left Party is involved. In Cologne, even the CDU talks to them, if only behind the scenes. Everyone can participate, only the right-wing extremists are not allowed to play. All of this looks very friendly on the outside, but often just sloppiness is concealed. Nobody looks so closely, nobody wants to spoil the good mood. Catastrophes like the collapse of the city archives with two dead are also the result of sloppy work and a lack of control, and something like that is promoted by the Cologne clique."